1 F.A.No.2790/10 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO.2790 OF 2010. Sandipan S/o Mahadeo Bhosale, Age 48 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Deolali Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. (The appellant Nos. 2 to 5 have executed Power of Attorney in favour of appellant No.1). 2. Babruwan S/o Mahadeo Bhosale, Age 56 years, Occ.Agril., R/o as above. 3. Balasaheb S/o Mahadeo Bhosale, Age 38 years, Occ.Agril., R/o as above. 4. Nilkanth S/o Mahadeo Bhosale, Age 35 years, Occ.Agril., R/o as above. 5. Dropadabai W/o Mahadeo Bhosale, Age 70 years, Occ.Household, R/o as above. ... Appellants. Versus The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Latur. ... Respondent. ... 2 F.A.No.2790/10 Mr.R.K.Ashtekar, advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.N.Kendre, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 29.03.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties. 4. The land of the present appellants was acquired. Feeling dissatisfied by the inadequate compensation awarded by the SLAO, the present appellants filed Reference U/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court dismissed the said Reference for want of evidence. The appellants did not lead any evidence. It is observed by the Reference Court that ample opportunity was given but still, the claimants 3 F.A.No.2790/10 failed to adduce any evidence. In absence of the said evidence, the Reference Court dismissed the Reference. 5. Mr.Ashtekar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in fact, the appellants had given Power of Attorney and they were under the impression that the Power of Attorney would adduce the evidence. The Power of Attorney did not adduce any evidence. According to learned counsel, the appellants are rustic persons residing in remote villages and they relied solely on the Power of Attorney Holder. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the very source of livelihood of the appellants has been taken away and they are required to be adequately compensated. The appellants be given one more opportunity to adduce evidence. 6. Mr.Kendre, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader submits that the Reference Court had time and again adjourned the matter to enable the appellants to adduce the evidence but there was total lethargy on the part of the claimants to 4 F.A.No.2790/10 adduce evidence and so no fault can be found in the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. 7. Perusal of the Judgment, it is manifest that the appellants were granted opportunity to adduce evidence and they did not lead any evidence. However, it can not be lost sight of the fact that the appellants are illiterate persons, residing in remote rural villages. They had relied on their Power of Attorney Holder. It is also a fact that the very source of livelihood of the claimants have been lost and they had approached the Court for adequate compensation. Taking a liberal approach of the matter, I am inclined to grant one more opportunity to the appellants. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Reference Court. The parties shall appear before the Reference Court on 18.4.2011. Taking into account the fact that the Reference has been 5 F.A.No.2790/10 filed long back, the Reference Court shall decide the Reference within a period of six (6) months thereafter. The appellants shall cooperate in disposal of the Reference and shall not seek any undue adjournment. 9. The First Appeal is accordingly allowed with above observations. No costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/fa279010