High Court
Facts
( 1 ) wp1898.24IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD47 WRIT PETITION NO. 1898 OF 2021SUBHASH SHRIDHARRAO DESHPANDE THROUGH LRS SUNANDASUBHASH DESHPANDE AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSMr.M.K. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners.Mr.K.S. Patil, AGP for the respondent-State.CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.DATE:04.02.2025PC :-01.Heard learned Advocates for the parties for some time. Inthe petition, a grievance is raised against an order of rejection ofReference filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.02.Few facts necessary for consideration of this petition are thatthe land belonging to the petitioners from Gat No. 132 admeasuring 67 Rand from Gat No. 134 admeasuring 2 Hectare 9 R situated at Javalgaon,Tal. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed, came to be acquired by letter No. 13/91 bythe Special Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioners received the noticeon 13.09.1995 for compensation. Petitioner No.2 appeared and receivedpayment under protest on 13.09.1995. A reference was made and filedin the office of learned SLAO, Jayakwadi, Project No.4, Beed on ( 2 ) wp1898.2420.10.1995 along with Court fees. Thereafter, the SLAO bycommunication dated 04.11.1995 communicated that the referenceunder section 18 is not within period of limitation and same came to berejected. There is further communication to the learned Advocate for thepetitioners, through whom the reference was filed, dated 08.12.1995informing that the reference is rejected as it is not in time. 03.Learned Advocate for the petitioners sent a notice dated12.12.1995 replying to the communication dated 04.11.1995 that thepetitioners did not receive notice under section 12(2) of the LandAcquisition Act. The Reference was filed from the date of awarding theamount within six months. The reference is thus within limitation. Itwas also requested to forward Reference to the Court. There was notreply as appears from the record. The learned Advocate, thereafter sentnotice dated 15.01.1999. However, it was specifically pointed out thatbefore rejecting the Reference under section 18 on the ground oflimitation, the notice is required to be given calling for personal hearing,no such opportunity is given. However, this is also not replied as per thecontentions of the petitioners. The petitioners have now approached thisCourt stating that there was no communication from the Authorities.They waited for a response and now they have approached this Court.
Legal Reasoning
( 3 ) wp1898.24The petitioners have produced on record copies of these documents andthe originals are shown to this Court. There is no dispute about thesame. The petitioners tendered on record photocopy of the originaldocuments. The same are taken on record.04.Learned Advocate Mr. Deshpande for the petitionersvehemently argues that the Reference was filed within six months fromthe date of awarding the amount. There is endorsement of the Authorityshowing that the proposal is received along with Court fee stamp on20.10.1995. Since the same was within six months, there was no reasonto reject the Reference. If at all the Reference was to be rejected onaccount of delay, opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to thepetitioners. He relies upon judgment in the case of Super ConstructionCompany Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in 1995(2) Mh.L.J. 286. Para No.5 of the said judgment reads as under :-“5. Moreover, even in a case where the Special Land Acquisition Officercomes to a prima facie finding that the reference application is barred bylimitation, it is incumbent on his part, before dismissing the application onthat ground, to give an opportunity of hearing to the claimant to showcause as to why it should not be rejected as barred by limitation. In thatevent, the claimant may get an opportunity to satisfy the officerconcerned that on a proper interpretation of the provisions of the Act ( 4 ) wp1898.24dealing with the period of limitation, the reference application is withintime or in the alternative may file an application showing cause for thedelay and praying for condonation thereof. It may be mentioned here thatthe controversy whether the provision of the Limitation Act includingSection 5 thereof applies to proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act ornot is no more res integra in view of the latest Full Bench decision of thisCourt where it has been held that the said provisions are applicable to theproceedings under the Land Acquisition Act also.”.He, thus, submits that in any case the order rejecting theReference is bad in law, as the Reference was filed in time. His secondsubmission is that in any case opportunity of hearing ought to have beengiven to the petitioner to show as to how the Reference is withinlimitation. He thus submits that the petition deserves to be allowed.05.Learned AGP vehemently opposes this petition. His firstobjection is in respect of delay and laches. He submits that theimpugned order is passed on 20.10.1995 and since thereafter no petitionwas filed. Even the last notice issued by the learned Advocate for thepetitioners was sent on 15.01.1999. The petitioners have approachedthis Court after 22 years even from the issuance of notice by learnedAdvocate for the petitioners. He submits that on seeing the originalpapers, there is no dispute about those documents. The conduct woulddisentitle the petitioners to seek any relief. He submits that if ultimately
Decision
( 5 ) wp1898.24the Reference is entertained and allowed, same would cause loss to thepublic exchequer as the respondents will have to pay interest to thepetitioners for all these years and prays for rejection of the petition.06.This Court has heard both the sides and has gone throughthe petition and original papers. So far as delay and laches is concerned,it is stated in the petition that in similar references, orders were passedin 2018. The petitioners were under hope that they would also receivecompensation at enhanced rate, as in between there was nocommunication between them and the learned Advocate. So far asrights of the petitioners is concerned, this Court finds that valuable rightof the petitioners is involved as their land is acquired by the respondents.The care of anxiety of the learned AGP can be taken by directing that thepetitioners would not be entitled to get any interest and other benefits onthe enhanced amount for the period from 1995 till filing of the petitioni.e. 02.12.2019. This Court finds substance in the submissions of learnedAdvocate for the petitioners. Considering the judgment in the case ofSuper Construction Company (supra) and considering all the above,this Court is inclined to allow this writ petition.07.In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The learned ( 6 ) wp1898.24Collector to forward Reference as stated in prayer clause (C) of thispetition within 8 (eight) weeks from today to the Reference Court. TheReference Court to decided the Reference within 1 (one) year thereafter.As stated above, the petitioners shall not be entitled to receive intereston the enhanced amount from 10.10.1995 till the date of filing of thepetition. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed off with no orderas to costs.[KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2025/jan25/wp1898.24