{1} fa316309.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL 3163 OF 2009 1 Eknath s/o Satwa Kale, (died) through L.Rs: 1-A) Yeshwant s/o Eknath Kale, age: 57 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Yeota, Tq. Kaij, District Beed. 1-B) Datta s/o Eknath Kale, age: 45 years, Occ: Household, R/o Deogaon, Tq. Kaij, District Beed. 1-C) Smt.Rahibai w/o Baliram Kamble, age: 65 years, Occ: Household, R/o Deogaon, Tq. Kaij, District Beed. 1-D) Kesharbai w/o Maroti Kamble, age: 40 years, Occ: Household, R/o Deogoan, Tq. Kaij, District Beed. 2 Jaiwanta Satwa Kale (died) through L.Rs: 2/1 Savitribai w/o Jaiwanta Kale, age: 50 years, Occ: Household, R/o Yeota, Tq. Kaij, District Beed. 2/2 Shiwaji s/o Jaiwanta Kale, age: 32 years, Occ: Agri., R/o as above. 2/3 Ramdas s/o Jaiwanta Kale, age: 29 years, Occ: Agri., {2} fa316309.odt R/o as above. 2/4 Mrs.Limbabai w/o Raghunath Gaikwad, age: 60 years, Occ: H.H., R/o Beed. 2/5 Mrs.Ranjana w/o Dadarao Gaikwad, age: 40 years, Occ: Household, R/o Beed, District Beed. 2/6 Mrs.Sanjana w/o Ashruba Jawle, age: 35 years, Occ: Household, R/o Chunabhati, Thane, District Thane. 2/7 Mrs.Vaishali w/o Namdeo Shinde, age: 35 years, Occ: Household, R/o Beed. 2/8 Mrs.Sushilabai w/o Pandharinath (died). 3 Nivruti s/o Satwa Kale, (died), through L.Rs: 3-A Namdeo s/o Niwruti Kale, age: 55 years, Occ: service, R/o Yeota, Tq. Kaij, District Beed. 3-B Tukaram Niwruti Kale, age: 40 years, Occ: Agril., R/o as above. 3-C Sakhahari Niwruti Kale, age: 40 years, Occ: Agril., R/o as above. 3-D Ramkishan Niwruti Kale, age: 30 years, Occ: Agril., R/o as above. {3} fa316309.odt 3-E Sow.Ayodhya w/o Sahebrao Kamble, age: 50 years, Occ: Household, R/o Ambejogai, Tq. Ambejogai, District Beed. 3-F Sow.Sharda w/o Rajendra Dhongre, age: 33 years, Occ: Household, R/o Chakardharnagar, Pangri Road, Beed, Tq. & Dist.Beed. Appellants Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Beed, i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Beed No.1. 2 The Executive Engineer, A.M.I. Division, Ambajogai, Taluka Ambajogai, Dist.Beed. Respondents Mr. M.D.Shinde, advocate for appellants. Mr. T.S.Lodhe, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr. V.M.Chate, advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 06 th June, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. Appeal is admitted and taken up forthwith for final hearing by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 This is an appeal presented by the claimants raising exception to the judgment and award dated 17.11.2007, passed by Ad hoc {4} fa316309.odt District Judge-2, Majalgaon in Land Acquisition Reference No.186/2004. The Reference Court has rejected the Reference Application tendered by the claimants in its entirety. 3 The agricultural land belonging to the claimants – appellants herein admeasuring 1 hectare 83 ares out of S.No.262/1, situate at village Yeota, Tq. Kaij, District Beed, came to be acquired for construction of percolation tank. Section 4 Notification was issued by the State and after observing the procedure as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer thereby offering compensation in respect of the acquired land, which according to the claimants, is quite meager. The Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation @ Rs.50/- per are. According to the claimants, market price of the acquired land is @ Rs.1000/- per are. The claimants, as such, tendered an application seeking reference of the matter to the Civil Court for determination of market value of the acquired land. 4 On receipt of the reference, same was registered as L.A.R. No.154/1991. After establishment of Court at Majalgaon, same was transferred and assigned to Ad hoc District Judge-2, Majalgaon. The Land Acquisition Reference was renumbered as L.A.R. No.186/2004. The claimants failed to lead any evidence. The application for reference tendered by the claimants was opposed by the Respondent by filing written statement. According to the respondents, rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is in consonance with the market rate prevailing during the relevant period. The Reference Court proceeded to reject the Reference Application on the ground that the claimants have failed to {5} fa316309.odt adduce evidence in support of his claim. 5 It is the contention of the appellants – claimants that the Reference Court shall not reject the Reference Application on account of failure of the claimants to lead evidence in the matter. It is for the Reference Court to proceed to determine adequacy or inadequacy of the compensation and direct payment of enhanced compensation, if any. On consideration of the relevant facts, Reference Court shall determine market value of the acquired property and pass appropriate award. 6 The claimants / appellants herein seek leave to place reliance 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 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 {6} fa316309.odt 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.” 7 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. 8 The judgment and award dated 17.11.2007, passed by Ad hoc District Judge-2, Majalgaon in Land Acquisition Reference No. 186/2004 (Old No.154/1991), is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Reference Court for fresh determination, in accordance with provisions of law. Considering long pendency of the Reference Application, the Reference Court is directed to decide the Land Acquisition Reference as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. The claimants shall co-operate for early disposal of the Reference Application and shall not ask for unnecessary adjournments. 9 The appeal is, thus, allowed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/fast1401209