1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATON NO. 6/2010 Deoram Premlal Choudhari versus State of Maharashtra and two others =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-== Mr. I.N.Choudhari, counsel for applicant/petitioner Mr. A.D.Sonak, AGP, for respondents. C ORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 10th JUNE, 2010. Heard. 2) The revision applicant/land holder challenged the communication dated 26.10.2009 by the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer – Respondent No.2, informing that the land reference in terms of Section 18 presented before the said authority having not been entertained by the learned Superintendent of C.J.S.D., Gondia, for deficiencies notified therein, specifically the reference being beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the reference was returned/rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer. The said order/direction dated 26.10.2009 is questioned by the present revision applicant. 2 3) There is earlier litigation between the present petitioner and the Government by Writ Petition No. 773/2008, in which the present revision applicant prayed for writ of mandamus directing the Special Land Acquisition Officer to grant compensation to the petitioner. Further direction was sought for supply of copy of the award and notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. 4) The State through the Land Acquisition Officer denied that there was no knowledge to the petitioner about the passing of the award in terms of Section 12(2). The State has placed on record by way of annexure the copy of notice purported to be served upon the petitioner through Talathi concerned, dated 3rd February, 2007, intimating the petitioner that the award is passed on 5th August, 2006, for the land to the extent of 31R of the present petitioner situated at Mouze Mundipar, Tq. Tiroda, Distt. Gondia. 5) The learned counsel for the revision applicant points that, notice or communication dated 26.10.2009 does not contemplate that any hearing was given to the petitioner to explain indeed there was delay not or how the reference was in limitation. There is no reasoned order passed by either the Collector or by the competent Authority. I find substance in the submission. 3 6) Without adverting to the merits of delay on the part of the petitioner as canvassed by the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer in his affidavit in reply, supported with the reply, fact remains that the learned Collector or the Competent Authority should have given an hearing to the applicant to explain the position as to how his request or application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was in order or within limitation. Such opportunity having not been given, the interest of justice demands that the matter needs to be remanded to the learned Collector to decide the same on its own merits. Hence the order. 7) C.R.A allowed. The learned Collector or the Competent Authority shall give hearing to the petitioner and then pass a reasoned order either in favour of the petitioner or against him on its own merits. The petitioner herein shall approach the learned Collector, Gondia, or Land Acquisition Officer on 15th July, 2010 and the authorities shall expeditiously dispose of the matter. This court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. (K.U.Chandiwal) JUDGE. Rvjalit