1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 84 OF 2004 1 Laxmibai w/o Ganesh Parke, Age 35 years, Occ. Agriculture, , R/o.Kushnoor, At Post. Manjram Tq. Biloli, District Nanded 2 Maroti s/o Rama Kasrale, Age 55 years, Occ. Agriculture 3 Rukminibai w/o Ananda Dhage, Age 45 years, Occ. Agriculture 4 Ratanbai w/o Khandu Kanchalwad, Age 50 years, Occ. Agriculture 5 Gangabai w/o Sambhaji Dhage Age 40 years, Occ. Agriculture 6 Banarasbai w/o Sambhaji Dhage, Age 40 years, Occ. Agriculture 7 Sarswatibai w/o Ganpati, Age 50 years, Occ. Agriculture 8 Sakhubai w/o Vishwambar Age 35 years, Occ. Agriculture 9 Parubai w/o Maruti Pawale, Age 22 years, Occ. Agriculture 10 Jijabai w/o Datta Buwa Bharti Age 50 years, Occ. Agriculture 11 Chandrabhagabai w/o Narayan Jakkawad Age 60 years, Occ. Agriculture 12 Bapurao s/o Kondaji Dhage, Age 60 years, Occ. Agriculture 13 Sambhaji s/o Ganoji Dhage, Age 45 years, Occ. Agriculture 2 14 Ananda s/o Ganoji Dhage, Age 52 years, Occ. Agriculture 15 Shankar Mahajan Jakkawad Age 45 years, Occ. Agriculture 16 Sadashiv Mahajan Jakkawad Age 40 years, Occ. Agriculture 17 Motiram s/o Mahajan Jakkawad Age 50 years, Occ. Agriculture 18 Vishwambhar s/o Ganoji Dhage, Age 40 years, Occ. Agriculture 19 Gangadhar Mahadji Dhage, Age 45 years, Occ. Agriculture 20 Govind Gangadhar Dhage, Age 12 years, minor u/g of father Gangadhar Mahadji Dhage, 21 Madhav s/o Sambhaji Dhage, Age 17 years, Occ. Agriculture, 22 Dattaram s/o Sambhaji Dhage, Age 15 years, Occ. Agriculture, Both are minors u/g of real father Sambhaji s/o Mahadji Dhage, Age 45 years, Occ. Agriculture, Petitioners Nos 2 to 22 are resident of Ghungrala, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded 23 Prajwalabai d/o Laxman Patil Age 15 years, U/guardian of real father Laxman Namdeo Patil, Age 35 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Kerur, Tq. Mukhed, at present r/o. Jigla, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded ...Petitioners. Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra Through District Collector, Nanded (Copy to be served on Government Pleader, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad) 3 2 The Sub Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Degloor, Tq. Degloor, District Nanded 3 The Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur ...Respondents ..... Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, advocate for the applicants Mrs. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. S.S. Dande, advocate for respondent No.3. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 27TH AUGUST, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1 All the petitioners are agriculturists having their lands at villages Kushnoor, Ghungrala and Saverkheda, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. It is the contention of the petitioners that though their lands are different, however action taken by respondent No.2 is common against all the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners have filed this common Civil Revision Application. 2 It is the case of the petitioners that notification under section 32(1) and (2) of the M.I.D.C. Act was published in the official Gazette on 20.12.1993 and on 23.12.1993. The petitioners were not made 4 aware about acquisition proceedings of their lands. The notice under Section 12(2) was served on the petitioners, when the petitioners were gone for accepting amount under the award. It is further case of the petitioners that they came to know about acquisition of their lands for the first time when they received notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. They have withdrawn the amount under protest and initiated to submit Reference Under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners therefore, submitted Reference application under Section 18 of the Act within prescribed period of limitation, as contemplated under Section 18 of the Act. It is further case of the petitioners that some of the petitioners could not pay the court fees alongwith the Reference Application. The Reference Applications were filed within period of limitation. It is specific contentions of the petitioners that it is not necessary or even contemplated under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act that the amount of court fees should be deposited alongwith the Reference Application. It is further contended by the petitioners that respondent No.2 did not refer their application under Section 18 of the Act to the Reference Court on the ground that the petitioners did not deposit the Court fees. According to the petitioners, the action of respondent No.2 to reject their applications on the ground of non payment of court fees amount is without any jurisdiction. The Land Acquisition Officer should have forwarded their applications to the Reference Court. 5 In para 7 of the revision application it is specifically stated that an identical issue was raised in writ petition No.3607 of 2001 and in the said petition this court has directed the respondents to refer the application under Section 18 of the Act to the Reference Court. The sum and substance of the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the respondent No.2 Land Acquisition Officer could not have rejected the application of the petitioners and could have forwarded the same to the Reference Court. Therefore, the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting the application of the petitioners on the ground of non payment of court fees is without any authority in law. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on the reported judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the case of Kashi Ram Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1996(1) Mh.L.J. 652 and the reported judgments of this Court in the cases Sau. Pushpadevi Giridharlal Agrawal and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2004 (1) LACC 326 and Sambhaji Manaji Chate and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in 2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 661. Relying on para 2 of the judgment in the case of Kashiram (supra) learned counsel would contend that under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act what is required is to make written application as envisaged under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act to the 6 Collector requiring the matter to be referred to the civil court to decide the objection of the applicant. Learned counsel further invited my attention to para Nos 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Sambhaji (supra) and submitted that in some what similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court has allowed the objection filed by the claimants and directed the authority to make Reference and further time was granted to the petitioners therein to pay the court fees. 3 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submitted that the claimants are bound to pay the court fees at the time of filing Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act only. He further submitted that there is no exemption from payment of court fees. Learned counsel invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kashi Ram (supra) and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that the judgment in the said case shall not be construed to meant that it had overriding effect to Article 15 of Schedule 1 of the Act in case where the provision applies. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the counsel for respondent No.3 that the claimants are bound to pay the court fees even at the time of filing of application. Therefore, he submitted that respondent No.2 has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned A.G.P. has adopted the arguments 7 advanced on behalf of respondent No.3. 4 I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at great length. In my considered view, respondent No.2 Special Land Acquisition Officer has no authority in law to reject the application filed by the claimants. Though, no court fees is paid by the claimants, however once necessary condition as contemplated under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act are fulfilled, it is obligatory on the part of the authorities concerned to forward the application of the claimants to the Reference Court. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sambhaji (supra) in para 9 observed thus:- “9. On perusal of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is seen that section 18(1) entrusts to the SLAO a statutory duty to make reference on the fulfillment of the conditions laid down therein. Hence once the necessary conditions under section 18 have been complied with by the applicant/petitioners, the S.L.A.O. ought to have forwarded the reference. A written application makes it incumbent on the Collector to make a reference provided that the necessary conditions are fulfilled. The four essential requisites for reference under section 18 are:- (a) The reference is to be asked for by the party aggrieved not accepting the award or has accepted the award under protest. 8 (b) It must be an application in writing with a request to make a reference. (c) It should contain the grounds of objection in clear terms. (d) The application was made within time. On going through the contents of the para 9, as quoted herein above, it is abundantly clear that once the claimants have complied with all essential requisites, the S.L.A.O. is bound to forward the Reference to the Civil Court by giving some time to the petitioners claimants for removing the deficiencies regarding the payment of Court fees either before him or before the Reference court. The learned Division bench in para 10 has further resorted the clarification given by the Apex Court in the case of Kashi Ram (supra) and held that the applicants are required to pay the court fees. However, the same should be remitted/deposited even before the Reference Court and therefore, it is appropriate for the S.L.A.O. to pass conditional order on the application preferred by the claimants and to forward it to the Civil Court. In para 11, the Division Bench has directed the authorities to make reference to the Civil Court and in that case three months time was granted to the petitioners therein to pay the amount of court fees. 5 Since the judgment in Sambhaji (supra) is delivered by the 9 Division Bench, this Court is bound by the said judgment. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the order passed by the Reference Court, which is at Exh.”A” (Collectively), is quashed and set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to make Reference to the Civil Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Court fees shall be paid by the petitioners/applicants herein within a period of three months from the date of receipt of reference from the Collector/Special land Acquisition Officer. It is made clear that unless such compliance is made the Reference shall not be registered. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. *****