{1} cra18010.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.180 OF 2010 1 Saheb s/o Tatyarao Mogale, age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Ujalamba, Tq. & Dist.Parbhani. 2 Vaijnath s/o Dashrath Mogale, age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Ujalamba, Tq. & Dist.Parbhani. 3 Mahadu s/o Manika Mogale, age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Ujalamba, Tq. & Dist.Parbhani. Petitioners Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Department of Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2 The Collector, Collector Office, Parbhani. 3 Special Land Acquisition Officer/ Sub Divisional Officer, Sailu, District Parbhani. Respondents Mr.Arvind Deshmukh, advocate holding for Mr.C.R.Bharaswadkar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.D.Kaldate, A.G.P for respondents. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 08 th March, 2011 {2} cra18010.odt ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard Shri A.S.Deshmukh, learned Counsel holding for Mr.C.R.Bharaswadkar, advocate for petitioners and Shri S.D.Kaldate, learned A.G.P. appearing for Respondents. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 An order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer/Sub Divisional Officer, Sailu, dated 09.08.2010, refusing to refer the reference application, tendered by petitioners, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, is subject matter of challenge in this Civil Revision Application. 3 It is contended by the petitioners that the land belonging to them, out of G.No.111, situate at village Ujlamba, has been acquired by the respondents to the extent of 1 hectare for the purposes of extension of gaothan. The award, in the matter, was published on 14.03.1989 and notices under Section 12(2) of the Act were issued on 13.05.1990. The petitioners withdrew the amount of compensation under protest on 14.05.1990 and thereafter proceeded to present an application to the Collector seeking reference of the matter for determination of proper market value of the acquired land, as contemplated under Section 18 of the Land {3} cra18010.odt Acquisition Act. 4 It transpires that the application seeking reference of the matter, tendered by the petitioner, was not accompanied with requisite court fees. The Collector, as such, did not refer the matter to the Civil Court. The petitioner approached the Collector by presenting an application on 04.02.2010 with a request to permit them to deposit the deficit court fees and to refer the matter to the Civil Court. However, the Collector turned down the request made by the petitioners on the ground that the application is tendered after about twelve years since rejection of application seeking reference to the Civil Court. It is further noted in the order passed by Respondent No.3 that the Reference Application was not accompanied by requisite court fees and as such, the matter has not been referred to the Civil Court. 5 Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the Respondent No.3 cannot refuse to refer the matter to the Civil Court on account of failure to pay proper court fees or on account of payment of deficit court fees. It is also contended that at no point of time, the reason for refusal to refer the matter to the Civil Court has been communicated by the respondents to the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Acquisition Act. On consideration of provisions of Land Acquisition {4} cra18010.odt Act and more particularly, Section 18 of the Act, it appears that the application seeking reference to the Civil Court shall have to be presented before the Collector within six months from the date of Collector’s award, if the petitioners or their representative were represented before the Collector; and in other cases, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) or within six months from the date of Collector’s award or the amendment thereof, whichever period shall first expire. On consideration of the provisions of Section 18(2)(a) and (b), it appears that the Collector is required to consider, whether the application to refer the matter to the Civil Court is within prescribed period of limitation. The reasons recorded in the order by the Respondent No.3, namely, failure to affix proper court fee stamps along with the application seeking reference does not form part of Section 18 of the Act. Thus, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for petitioners, that it was not open for the Collector or his representative i.e. the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refuse to refer the matter to the Civil Court on account of failure to affix proper court on the application seeking reference to the Civil Court, shall have to be accepted. 6 Learned Counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to a judgment in the matter of Laxmibai Ganesh Parke Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2010 (6) ALL MR 735 and contended that it was not open for the Collector or his {5} cra18010.odt representative to refuse the matter to the Civil Court on account of failure of the petitioners to affix requisite court fee stamps along with the application seeking reference to the Civil Court. This Court, relying on the judgment in the matter of Sambhaji Manaji Chate & another Vs. State of Maharashtra & another, reported in 2003 (2) MhLJ 661, has taken a view that it was obligatory on the part of Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to Civil Court on fulfillment of the requirements laid down under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and further it was not open for the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refuse to refer the matter to the Civil Court on the ground of failure to affix proper court fee stamps to the application. 7 For the reasons recorded above, I am of the view that the order passed by Respondent No.3 refusing to refer the application to the Civil Court for determination of proper market value of the acquired land, is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. 8 Hence, I pass the following order: (1) The order passed by Respondent No.3 dated 09.08.2010, refusing to refer the application to the Civil Court, tendered by the petitioners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, is quashed and set aside. {6} cra18010.odt (2) Respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to refer the application tendered by petitioners to the Civil Court for determination of proper market value of the acquired land, within six weeks from today. (3) Petitioners are permitted to deposit the amount of requisite court fees with the Special Land Acquisition Officer / Sub Divisional Officer, Sailu, within four weeks from today. (4) On receipt of the Reference, the Reference Court may proceed to decide the same in accordance with provisions of law. (5) Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. R.M.BORDE JUDGE ******* adb/cra18010