High Court
Facts
wp-11162-2023.odt(1)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION No.11162 OF 2023Shankar Karbasappa Patil Dead Through Lrs.1.Gunvant s/o Shankar PatilAge: 73 Years Occu: Agri2.Shashikala w/o Sahdev Bhure,Age: 62 Years, Occu: Agriculture3.Minakshi W/o Bharat PatilAge: 59 Years, Occu: Agriculture4. Ramesh S/o Shankar PatilAge: 57 Years, Occu: AgricultureAll R/o Gunjoti Tq: OmergaDist: Osmanabad...PetitionersVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Osmanabad2. The Executive Engineer,Irrigation Project Majbutikaran Division Omerga, Tq: Omerga Dist: Osmanabad3.The Special Land Acquisition Officer,Krushna Khore Vikas Mahamandal, Osmanabad...Respondents...Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Ajay ShindeAGP for Respondent/State : Mr. K.S. Patil… CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : JULY 22, 2025 wp-11162-2023.odt(2)ORAL JUDGMENT :-1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finallywith consent of parties.2.Present petition takes exception to order dated03.05.2013 passed in L.A.R. No.87 of 2011 as well as order dated10.04.2018 passed in M.A. (NRJI) No.02 of 2013 passed by learnedJoint Civil Judge Senior Division, Omerga, District Osmanabad.3.It is the case of petitioners that they are owner of landgat nos.86 and 87 situated at Village Gunjoti, Taluka Omerga, DistrictOsmanabad. The portion of aforesaid land including structure hasbeen acquired for purpose of Chincholi-Palasgaon Storage Tank.Notification under Section 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act (‘The Act’for short) was issued on 07.01.2000 and 16.08.2001 respectively. On21.07.2006, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award underSection 11 of Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner on 23.08.2006 wasserved with notice under Section 12 (2) of Land Acquisition Act.Aggrieved by assessment of compensation under award passed byLand Acquisition Officer, the petitioner filed reference under Section18 and raised the claim for compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acrealong with statutory benefits. The learned Reference Court i.e. JointCivil Judge Senior Division, Omerga dismissed L.A.R. No.89 of 2011observing that petitioner failed to lead evidence and further observedthat there is no record to indicate that land block no.86 admeasuring
Legal Reasoning
wp-11162-2023.odt(5)under Section 18 of the Act. Learned Reference Court rejected sameby order dated 03.05.2013. Perusal of judgment of Reference Courtdo not show that original claimant Shankar entered in witness box orhas recorded any evidence or decision taken by Reference Court wason merit of matter. Although, there is observation in para 8 ofjudgment depict that block no.86 to the extent of 90 R, stands in thename of one Sidram, such observations are not on the basis ofevidence led by claimant. The conclusion drawn by the ReferenceCourt on the basis of copy of award of e-statement that was tenderedalong with reference. The decision of Reference Court dated03.05.2013 was subjected to review in Miscellaneous ApplicationNo.02 of 2013 and it was specifically brought on record that due totyping error, land out of gat no.86 was stated to be acquired to theextent of 90 R. However, in fact it was acquired to the extent of 1 H90 R and 10 R was acquired from gat no.85. The e-statementindicating aforesaid position was not filed on record due to oversight.Later on, review was sought, however, same is also rejected vide orderdated 10.04.2018. 9.The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Civil RevisionApplication No.63 of 2017 observed that an order otherwise than onmerits passed in proceedings under Section 18 of the Land AcquisitionAct cannot be considered as an award and does not amount to adecree, as defined in Section 2 (2) of Civil Procedure Code by virtue wp-11162-2023.odt(6)of deeming provision under Section 26(2) of Land Acquisition Act.Therefore, the appeal against such award would not be maintainable.The Division Bench further observed that in light of decision ofHon’ble Supreme Court in case of Khazan Singh Vs. Union of India,reported in 2002 (2) SCC 242, reference under Section 18 of LandAcquisition Act has to be decided on merits and any order passedother than on merit, would be susceptible to challenge under Article227 of Constitution of India in its supervisory jurisdiction.10.In case of Walmik Trimbak Tupe (supra), the Single Judgeof this Court in similar situation as can be gathered from the facts ofcase observed as under :“11.In view of the same, even though there was an attempton the part of Reference Courts to decide the reference onmerits, however, in the given set of facts and in terms of theratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases, as referredabove, I conclude that the Land Acquisition Reference petitions,which are subject matter of these writ petitions, are not decidedon merits and as such, the impugned judgment and orderspassed by the respective Reference Courts in Land AcquisitionReferences, as mentioned in the chart in para 3 of thisjudgment, are not sustainable in the eyes of law and thusrequired to be quashed and set aside. “ 11.In light of aforesaid exposition of law, the decisionrendered by the Reference Court can neither be termed as an awardnor same can be sustained in law. Therefore, this Court is inclined toallow writ petition; however, with a rider that petitioners shall not beentitled for interest on compensation amount from 03.05.2013 i.e.date of dismissal of reference petition till date of this order, as wp-11162-2023.odt(7)petitioners were not diligent in prosecuting reference before theReference Court and even belatedly approached this Court in this writpetition. There is hardly any explanation for lethargic conduct anddelay and laches on part of petitioners.12.In that view of matter, writ petition is allowed in terms ofprayer clause (B).13.Petitioners to appear before the Reference Court on02.09.2025.14.Learned Reference Court shall endeavour to decide thereference expeditiously and in any case within a period of one yearfrom the date of this order.15.Rule is made absolute in above terms. (S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)Mujaheed//
Arguments
wp-11162-2023.odt(3)90 R is owned by petitioner as same is standing in the name of oneSidram. 4.The petitioner filed Review Petition No.02 of 2013contending that there was typographical error in petition whiledescribing the land. However, same has been rejected vide orderdated 10.04.2018.5.The petitioner impugns original order in L.A.R. No. 87 of2011 dated 03.05.2013 as well as order dated 10.04.2018 passed inM.A. (NRJI) No.02 of 2013 in present writ petition.6.Mr. Ajay Shinde, learned advocate appearing forpetitioners submits that impugned order has been passed withoutgranting opportunity to lead evidence. He would invite attention ofthis Court to the observations in Para 8 of judgment whereinReference Court observed that block no.86 admeasuring 90 R forwhich enhanced compensation is claimed stands in the name of oneSidram. Learned advocate submits that due to insufficient materialon record, aforesaid observations were made. The petitioner hadthereafter filed an application for review along with copy ofe-statement to bring on record exact description of acquired land.However, the learned Reference Court without considering refused toentertain review petition. In support of his contentions, Mr. AjayShinde relies upon judgment of this Court dated 17.01.2020 in thecase of Walmik s/o Trimbak Tupe Vs. The State of Maharashtra and wp-11162-2023.odt(4)Another in Writ Petition No.12795 of 2019 with companion mattersand submits that if there is no decision on merit by Reference Court,the order needs to be quashed and set aside and matter can berelegated back to Reference Court for decision on merit after grantingopportunity to the petitioners.7.Mr. K.S. Patil, learned AGP appearing forrespondent/State however supports the impugned order. He wouldsubmit that original award is passed by Reference Court on03.05.2013. Thereafter, Review Application No.02 of 2013 was filedand same has been rejected on 10.04.2018. Whereas, present writpetition is filed in the year 2023. Mr. Patil would further submit thatthe learned Reference Court observed that the petitioners were notowners of land which was subject matter of acquisition. He wouldtherefore urge to reject writ petition.8.Having considered submissions advanced, it can beobserved that Shankar Karbasappa Patil was original owner of landfrom survey nos.85 and 86. As per award dated 21.07.2016 passedby Special Land Acquisition Officer, 10 R land from survey no.85 and1 H 90 R land from survey no.86 has been acquired and videadditional award dated 16.06.2007, 80 R land is acquired from surveyno.86. Therefore, the land acquisition reference was filed before LandAcquisition Officer and same was referred to Civil Judge SeniorDivision, Omerga. Accordingly, L.A.R. No.87 of 2011 was registered