1 CRA 77 OF 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 77 OF 2010 Karbhani S/o Anna Satpute, Age 72 years, Occu. Agri., R/o Pavbaki Road, Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar Applicant V E R S U S 1. The Municipal Council, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar Through its Chief Executive Officer. 2. Khandu S/o Anna Satpute, Age 77 years, Occu. Agri., R/o Pavbaki Road, Sangamenr, Dist. Ahmednagar. Respondents Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the appellant Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate for respondent No. 1 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 31st January, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The applicant and the respondent No. 2 on one side and the respondent No. 1 on the other, obtained a decree by consent in the Regular Civil Suit No. 34 of 1983. The parties agreed that the respondent No. 1 would measure the area of the land belonging to the applicant and other respondents, which they had utilized for making road. They further agreed that the land so found to have been encroached, would be acquired by following due process. They 2 CRA 77 OF 2010 further agreed if the amount of compensation awarded to the applicant and the respondent No. 2 is not found to be agreeable, they would have a right to file a Reference, as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 got the land measured, and it was found that area of 732 Sq. meters was utilized for making road. Thereafter, the applicant filed execution proceeding and claimed that he should be awarded compensation for the land acquired. The Court directed the Assistant Director, Town Planning, to determine the value of the compensation. Initially, the Assistant Director unilaterally decided and fixed the compensation amount. As per his decision, the respondent No. 1 deposited the amount in the Court. The applicant took objection to this, saying that the Assistant Director did not hear him before fixing the compensation. The Court there upon sent back the matter to the Assistant Director for fixing compensation, after hearing both the parties. After hearing the parties, the Assistant Director once again sent his report giving detail reasons, as to why he fixed the compensation in a particular manner. He also discussed as to on what date the land was acquired etc. 3. The report came before the Court and the learned Judge of the Executing Court heard objections, raised by the applicant, on even the report, and directed the respondent No. 1 to pay certain amount as interest over and above the amount awarded as compensation. The Court, however, held that the decree is fully satisfied. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant contended that the Court could not have held that the decree is fully satisfied, because the report that was before the Executing Court, could be at the most an Award passed for acquiring the land. Per contra the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 contended that 3 CRA 77 OF 2010 the applicant had given up his right to file a Reference, as per the original terms of compromise. However, he could not show me anything on the record to conclude that the applicant had given-up his right to challenge the Award by filing a Reference. According to Mr. Bedre, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, since the applicant made an application to the Court for sending the case to the Assistant Director for fixing the compensation, he had given-up his right to file his Reference. I am afraid, this argument is erroneous. The applicant wanted the process of fixing and calculating the compensation to be done in a fair manner, as is done while acquiring the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. Indeed this was the idea of the applicant when he requested the court to get the the compensation fixed through an independent agency. So, the report filed by the Assistant Director, Town Planing, dated 11th June, 2004, was like an Award made under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act. Such an Award can still be challenged by filing a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. The learned Judge of the Executing Court probably ignored this possibility and practically sat over the report / Award passed by the Assistant Director in judgment and made improvement in it. This obviously was not expected in the execution of the decree. When the report of the Assistant Director came before the execution Court, the learned Judge should have directed the parties to accept the report as the Award and take further steps if required. 7. So, the Civil Revision Application would partly succeed. 8. The finding recorded by the Execution Court that the decree was fully satisfied, is set aside. The applicant / Decree Holder shall have liberty to file Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act against the report of the Assistant Director, Town Planing, dated 4 CRA 77 OF 2010 11th June, 2004. The parties apparently unnecessarily remained engaged before the Execution Court after arrival of the report in the year 2004 till today. While calculating the period of limitation for filing the Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the period so spent shall be ignored. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SDM*CRA/77.10/31/1/11.ok