{1} fa92011.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.920 OF 2011 Sow. Satyabhamabai w/o Dnyanoba Rukme, age: 67 years, Occ: Household & Agril., R/o Kawha, Tq. & District Latur. Appellant Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Latur, District Latur. Respondent Mr. A.V.Patil, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Gunale, advocate for appellant. Mr. K.S.Patil, A.G.P. for respondent-State. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 09 th June, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. Appeal is admitted and taken up forthwith for final hearing by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 This is an appeal presented by the claimant raising exception to the judgment and award dated 11.01.2011, passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur in Land Acquisition Reference No. 1186/1990. The Reference Court has rejected the Reference Application tendered by the claimant in its entirety. 3 The agricultural belonging to the claimant / appellant {2} fa92011.odt herein out of B.No.103, to the extent of 27 ares situate at village Kava, Tq. Latur, came to be acquired by the respondent for construction of Tawarja Medium Project. After following procedure prescribed under Land Acquisition Act, the Land Acquisition Officer declared the award and offered compensation @ Rs.6600/- per acre in respect of acquired land. 4 The claimant, being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, tendered application seeking reference of the matter to the Civil Court for determination of market value of the acquired land. According to the claimant, the land acquired by the State has non agricultural potentiality and at the relevant time, market price of the acquired land was Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. The claimant, as such, claimed enhancement in the amount of compensation in respect of acquired land. 5 The Reference Application tendered by the claimant came to be referred to the Civil Court and numbered as Land Acquisition Reference No.1186/1990 and same was assigned to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, for disposal. The Reference Application was opposed by the State by filing written statement, wherein it is contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is in consonance with the market price of the acquired land during the relevant time and as such the Reference Application does not deserve any consideration. 6 The claimant could not lead evidence before the Reference Court and on account of failure of the claimant to lead evidence, the Reference Application tendered by the claimant came to be rejected in its {3} fa92011.odt entirety. 7 It is the contention of the appellant – claimant that the Reference Court is not expected to reject the Reference Application on account of failure of the claimant to lead evidence in the matter. It is for the Reference Court to determine market value of the acquired property and pass appropriate award. 8 The claimant / appellant herein seeks leave to place reliance on the judgment in the matter of Kawadu Madhav Bansod Vs. State of Maharashtra & another, reported in 2004 (4) Bom.C.R. 495. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, it is observed thus: “8 On the point as to what should be the form of award and the duty of the Court when the claimant is absent or if present fails to adduce evidence, the learned Counsel for revision petitioner cited (M.S. Ramaiah and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer) 1, A.I.R. 1974 Kar. 122. This case lays down that when a reference is made to the Court (Civil Court), it is its duty to determine the amount of compensation payable for the land or lands acquired; the Court has no jurisdiction to refuse to determine the amount of compensation even where the claimant remains absent or where he is present, fails to adduce evidence; the Court further has to apply its mind and make an award and cannot blindly confirm the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. The case further enunciates that the award which the Court passes must be in the form of a judgment containing the statement of the grounds for the award. Where the claimant remains absent or does not produce evidence, it is not open to the Court to dispose of the reference stating that the claim of the claimant is dismissed or that the {4} fa92011.odt reference is rejected. This case is also on the point that the reference cannot be dismissed in default.” 9 Considering the ratio laid down in the judgment cited supra and on consideration of the observations made by this Court in the judgment in the matter of Prithaviraj s/o Shaktishinh Khomne & others Vs. State of Maharashtra & another, reported in 2011 (2) ALL MR 665, instant appeal needs to be allowed and same is accordingly allowed. 10 The judgment and award dated 11.01.2011, passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur in Land Acquisition Reference No. 1186/1990, is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Reference Court for fresh determination, in accordance with provisions of law. Considering long pendency of the Reference Application, the Reference Court is directed to decide the Land Acquisition Reference as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. The claimant shall co-operate for early disposal of the Reference Application and shall not ask for unnecessary adjournments. 11 The appeal is, thus, allowed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/fa92011