1 5IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.30 OF 2009 Kallappa s/o Hirgappa Nagoba, died, through L.Rs. 1. Smt. Bhagabai w/o Kallappa Nagoba, Age 73 years, Occ. Household, R/o Murum, Tq. Omerga, District Osmanabad. 2. Devendra s/o Kallappa Nagoba, Age 54 years, Occ. Agri., R/o as above. 3. Sidram s/o Kallappa Nagoba, Age 42 years, Occ. Agri., R/o as above. 4. Prabhakar s/o Kallappa Nagoba, Age 33 years, Occ. Agri., R/o as above. 5. Kesharbai Kallappa Nagoba, Age 31 years, Occ. Household, R/o as above. 6. Kamalbai Vilas Birajdar, Age 31 years, Occ. Household, R/o as above. 2 7. Vimalbai Dnyanoba Birajdar, Age 29 years, Occ. Household, R/o as above. 8. Mahadevi Gunderao Lamjane, Age 27 years, Occ. Household, R/o as above. 9. Jaishree Madhukar Ghuregave, Age 25 years, Occ. Household, R/o as above. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Osmanabad, District Osmanabad. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri Vivek Ingale, Advocate for the petitioner Shri K.S. Patil, A.G.P. for respondents ..... CORAM : S.P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 23rd June, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned A.G.P. for respondents. 3 3. The present revision application is directed against the order rendered by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga in Land Acquisition Reference No.119/2005 on 15.1.2009, thereby rejecting the said reference. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the fact that the petitioner had filed Land Acquisition Reference No.280/1997 at District Court, Osmanabad and thereafter it was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga, but the petitioner was not aware about the said transfer. Moreover, after the transfer as aforesaid, the said Land Acquisition Reference No.280/1997 was renumbered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 119/2005. Hence, in view of the said position, the petitioner could not attend the Court at Omerga as well as Advocate appearing in the matter also did not intimate to him accordingly. Hence, due to said communication gap between the petitioner claimant and the Advocate, the petitioner claimant could not remain present before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga on 15.1.2009 and, therefore, the said Land Acquisition Reference No.119/2005 came to be rejected without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence therein. 5. On the face of the said position, coming to the impugned order passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga in Land Acquisition Reference No.119/2005 on 15.1.2009, the learned Judge observed that the claimant is required to prove his case by filing documents and adducing cogent and reliable evidence, but although the reference petition was pending since 4 long, the claimant did not submit any document except reference petition Exh.1. He further observed that the claimant and learned Advocate though had the knowledge about the pendency of reference petition but still they failed to adduce and produce evidence and, therefore, the learned Judge proceeded to answer the issue No.1 and 2 in the negative and rejected the reference. 6. However, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Land Acquisition Reference Petition No.280/1997 which was earlier pending before District Judge, Osmanabad, was transferred to the new establishment of Additional District Judge, Omerga and was assigned to Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga by renumbering it as Land Acquisition Reference No. 119/2005, he was not aware about the said transfer nor his Advocate communicated the petitioner/claimant about the same which resulted into absence of the petitioner/claimant before the Court on 15.1.2009 and no evidence could be adduced on his behalf on the said date which consequently culminated into rejection of the said reference, and hence, same is required to be considered with the proper perspective in the interest of justice. 7. Besides, the fact remains that the petitioners/claimants could not get the opportunity to adduce/ produce evidence in the said Land Acquisition Reference which came to be rejected on 15.1.2009 due to absence of the petitioners/ claimants, and they should get an opportunity to contest/ prosecute the said Land Acquisition Reference on merits with a view to do the substantial 5 justice to the parties. 8. Hence, in view of the said position, it is apparent that, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga did not take into consideration the fact that the Land Acquisition Reference No.280/1997 which was filed earlier at District Court, Osmanabad was transferred to Additional District Judge, Omerga i.e. new establishment and was sent to Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga after renumbering it and, therefore, notices thereof were required to be issued to the parties after the said transfer and renumbering of the said Land Acquisition Reference. However, I am told by learned counsel for the petitioner that such notices were not issued by the Court to the respective parties. Hence, in view of the said position, if the opportunity is not given to the petitioner/claimant to adduce and produce evidence in the said Land Acquisition Reference, it would result into miscarriage of justice and, therefore, the present Civil Revision Application is required to be allowed and the order passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga in Land Acquisition Reference No.119/2005 on 15.1.2009 is liable to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. 9. In the result, this is a fit case to allow the present Civil Revision Application and accordingly, the present Civil Revision Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (C) thereof and the impugned order passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga in Land Acquisition Reference No.119/2005 on 15.1.2009 stands quashed and set aside and the said Land Acquisition 6 Reference stands restored to the file with directions to the learned trial Judge to hear and decide the said reference on merits after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce/ produce their respective evidence. Rule made absolute in above terms. (S.P. DAVARE, J.)