{1} fa33111.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.331 OF 2011 1 Sambhaji s/o Parasram Karpe, (died), through Lrs.: 1/1 Parwatibai w/o Sambhaji Karpe, age: 50 years, Occ: Household; 1/2 Datta s/o Sambhaji Karpe, age: 25 years, Occ: Agril., 1/3 Maghraj s/o Sambhaji Karpe, age: 13 years, Occ: Nil, Minor U/g of his natural mother Parwatibai w/o Sambhaji Karpe. All R/o Dhamoni, Tq. Sonpeth, District Parbhani. 2 Hanuman s/o Parasram Karpe, (died) through Lrs: 2/1 Meera w/o Hanuman Karpe, age: 40 years, Occ: Household; 2/2 Balaji s/o Hanuman Karpe, age: 6 years, Occ: Nil, Minor u/g of his natural mother Meera w/o Hanuman Karpe; Both R/o Dhamoni, Tq. Sonpeth, District Parbhani. 3 Pandurang s/o Parasram Karpe, age: 42 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Dhamoni, Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani. Appellants Versus {2} fa33111.odt 1 The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Parbhani. 2 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, M.K.K., Parbhani. 3 The Executive Engineer, Majalgaon Canal Division, Parli Vaijnath, Tq.Parli Vaijnath. Respondents Mr.M.P.Kale, advocate for appellants. Mr.K.S.Patil, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.T.G.Gaikwad, advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 22 nd July, 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 preferred by the original claimants raising exception to the judgment and award dated 01.12.2010, passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gangakhed, District Parbhani, in Land Acquisition Reference No.647/1997. 3 The agricultural land belonging to the claimants out of S.No.94 (G.No.336) situate at village Dhamoni, Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani, to the extent of 60 ares land, came to be acquired for {3} fa33111.odt construction of Jaikwadi Canal. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, while declaring award, determined amount of compensation at Rs. 8400/-. The claimants, being dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer towards compensation of acquired land, tendered an application requiring reference of the matter to the Civil Court for determination of market value of the acquired land. The claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre. When the matter was prescribed for recording evidence of the claimants, the claimants could not lead any evidence, which led to rejection of the Reference Application. The Reference Court, on account of failure of the claimants to lead oral or documentary evidence, recorded a finding that the amount of compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer is adequate and reflects the market price. The Reference Application, thus, came to be rejected. 4 Shri Kale, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that the Reference Court ought not to have rejected the Reference Application merely on the ground that the claimants have failed to lead evidence and remained absent. It is contended that it is the duty of the Court to determine the amount of compensation payable in respect of acquisition of the property and the Court has no jurisdiction to refuse to determine the amount of compensation even where claimant remains absent or he remains present but failed to adduce evidence. It is for the Court to apply mind and award compensation. It is not expected of the Court to blindly confirm the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Reliance is placed 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 {4} fa33111.odt 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 reference is rejected. This case is also on the point that the reference cannot be dismissed in default.” 5 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. 6 The judgment and award dated 01.12.2010, passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gangakhed, District Parbhani, in L.A.R. No. {5} fa33111.odt 647/1997, is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Reference Court for fresh determination, in accordance with provisions of law. The claimants assure that they would not seek unnecessary adjournments in the matter and would co-operate with the Reference Court for early disposal of the Reference Application. In this view of the matter, 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. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/fa33111