{1} fa163911.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.1639 OF 2011 1 Vishwamber s/o Namdeo Kadam, age: 60 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Poundul, Tal. Patoda, District Beed. 2 Digambar s/o Namdeo Kadam (dead), through L.Rs.: 2(A) Shrikrushna Digambar Kadam, age: 32 years, Occ: Agril.; 2(B) Prabhavati Digambar Kadam, age: 60 years, R/o Poundul, Tal. Patoda, District Beed. Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.D.R.Jaybhar, advocate for appellants. Mr. K.S.Patil, A.G.P. for respondent. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 22 nd July, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. {2} fa163911.odt Appeal is admitted and taken up forthwith for final hearing by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 This is an appeal raising exception to the judgment and award dated 20.10.2004, passed by II Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Beed in Land Acquisition Reference No.27/1999. 3 It is the case of claimants / appellants herein that house property belonging to the claimants bearing Nos.40/83/2 and 41/83/1, situate at village Poundul, came to be acquired by the State for the purpose of Narayangad Medium Irrigation Project at Poundul. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 30.09.1993 and after following the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, award came to be passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 24.07.1995, prescribing Rs.36,915/- as a price of the acquired property admeasuring 240.53 square meters. The claimants accepted the amount under protest and tendered an application seeking reference of the matter to the Civil Court for determination of market value of the acquired property. The claimants claimed total compensation amounting to Rs.2,86,915/- excluding the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Reference Application was placed for recording of evidence before the Reference Court, however, the claimants failed to lead evidence. The Reference Court, therefore, dismissed the Reference {3} fa163911.odt Application on account of failure of the claimants to lead evidence. The order of rejection of the Reference is subject matter of challenge in this First Appeal. 4 Shri Jaybhar, 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 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 {4} fa163911.odt 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 claimants / appellants have presented this appeal beyond 1774 days after lapse of limitation. The claimants have tendered an undertaking in this Court to the effect that in the event of the Reference Court directing payment of enhanced amount of compensation in respect of acquired property, the {5} fa163911.odt claimants would not claim benefit of interest on the amount of compensation for the period between 20.10.2004 till presentation of instant appeal in this Court i.e. 27.11.2009, for the period of 1774 days. The undertaking is accepted. It is directed that in the event of the Reference Court holding the claimants entitled to receive enhanced amount of compensation, claimants shall not be paid benefits of interest payable to them for the period of 1774 days. 7 The appeal is, thus, allowed. The judgment and award dated 20.10.2004, passed by II Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Beed in Land Acquisition Reference No.27/1999, 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 disposal of the Reference Application. The Reference Court is directed to decide the Reference Application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 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/fa163911