Sadashiv Waman Shinde v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WPs.6945 of 2020 and ors.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6945 of 2020 Chandrakant s/o. Manik Shinde ..Petitioner Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and ors.
..Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO.6946 of 2020 Sadashiv s/o. Waman Shinde ..Petitioners Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and ors.
..Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO.6947 of 2020 Narshing s/o. Bhimrao Somwase (died), through L.Rs.
1A) Kamalbai w/o. Narshing Somwase, Age : 70 years, Occ. Household, r/o. Dahitana, Tq.Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad and ors.
..Petitioners Vs.
The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Osmanabad and ors.
..Respondents
AND WRIT PETITION NO.6949 of 2020 Sudhamati w/o. Govind Dhumal (died) Through LRs.
1.
Ashok s/o. Govind Dhumal Age : 65 years, Occ. Agri., r/o. Khandala, Tq.Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad and others ..Petitioners Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and ors.
..Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO.6948 OF 2020 Mallikarjun s/o. Nagnath Lakde ..Petitioner Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and ors.
..Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO.6950 OF 2020 Sidhabai @ Sitabai Rama Anbule (died), through L.Rs.
Jijabai w/o. Gajendra Lomte, age : 48 years, Occ. Household, r/o. Ruibhar Tq. and Dist. Oamanabad ..Petitioners VS.
The State of Maharashtra and ors.
..Respondents
AND WRIT PETITION NO.2538 OF 2020 Digamber Namdeo Gaikwad ..Petitioners Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and ors.
..Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO.3616 OF 2020 Swarupchand s/o. Chotiram Chandwade ..Petitioners Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and ors.
..Respondents ---- Mr.R.V.Naiknavare, Advocate for petitioners in W.P. Nos.6945, 6946, 6947, 6949, 6948, 6950 of 2020 Mrs.Maya Jamdhade, Advocate for petitioners in W.P. No.2538 and 3616 of 2020 Mr.S.N.Morampalle and A.B.Chate, AGP for State in respective petitions Mr.A.S.Shelke, Advocate for respondent no.3 in W.P. No.2538 of 2020 Mrs.S.G.Chincholkar, Advocate for respondent no.2 in W.P. No.3616 of 2020 ---- CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT, J.
DATE : JANUARY 21 , 2021
FINAL ORDER :- All these Writ Petitions are decided by this common order since common questions of facts and law arise therein. 2.
The challenge in these Writ Petitions is to the orders, whereby land acquisition references preferred by the petitioners have either been dismissed/rejected for want of evidence or returned back to the concerned Land Acquisition Officers. The details thereof are given in tabular form, as under:- WRIT PETITION L.A.R. No.
Date of order Court which Name of petitioner/s passed the NO.
order 6945/2020 1598/2004 09.08.2007 District Chandrakant Manik Shinde Judge, Omerga (Ref. Petition rejected) 6946/2020 1576/2004 10.08.2007 (Ref. Petition District Sadashiv s/o.
Judge, Omerga Waman rejected) Shinde 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior 6947/2020 672/2007 19.04.2013 (Ref. Petition Narsing s/o.
Bhimrao Somwase and sent back to Division, Osmanabad to LAO) anr.
6948/2020 129/2005 30.04.2009 (Ref. Petition Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Mallikarjun (New) 399/1997 Nagnath rejected) Division, Lakde (Old) Umerga
3rd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior 6949/2020 417/2010 08.10.2015 (Ref. Petition Sow.
Sudhamati w/ sent back to Division, Osmanabad o. Govind to LAO) Dhumal 6950/2020 317/1999 18.06.2012 Civil Judge, Sidhabai @ Sitabai w/o.
(Ref.
Disposed of) Senior Division, Osmanabad Rama Anbhule 2538/2020 253/2007 28.11.2018 Civil Judge, Digambar s/o. Namdeo (Ref.
Dismissed) Senior Division, Gaikwad Nanded 3616/2020 77/2010 23.12.2016 (Dismissed) Civil Judge, Swarupchand (New) 648/2005 Senior Division, Chotiram Chandwade (Old) Vaijapur 3.
I have heard Mr.Naiknavare and Mrs.Jamdhade, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the respective petitions. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioners were poor agriculturists. Their properties came to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners have been paid inadequate compensation. The petitioners had, therefore, preferred reference/s for enhancement of compensation. The Advocates appearing on their behalf before the respective courts did not inform the petitioners the progress of the
matters. Some of the land references came to be transferred from Osmanabad to Omerga. The Courts concerned either dismissed/rejected six LARs (stated in tabular form herein above) or returned two LARs (stated in tabular form herein above) to the concerned Land Acquisition Officers. The same has caused grave injustice to petitioners. After having learnt about such orders, the petitioners have moved these Writ Petitions.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgments and orders passed by this court in following Writ Petitions:-
1) Writ Petition No.12795 of 2019 (Walmik s/o. Trimbak Tupe Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.) and other connected petitions decided on 17.01.2020);
2) Writ Petition No.3572 of 2020 (Narshing Vithoba Jagtap Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.) and other connected petitions decided on 04.03.2020.
According to the learned counsel, the petitioners would lead evidence in their respective LARs. They be given an
opportunity of hearing. LARs could not have been disposed of by the courts concerned observing the petitioners to have been failed to adduce evidence. Learned counsel, therefore, ultimately, urged for setting aside the impugned orders. 5.
Learned AGP would, on the other hand, submit that the petitioners were grossly negligent. There is delay of over 6-7 years in some of the matters to approach this Court. If the Court is pleased to allow the petitions, the petitioners may not be held to be entitled for interest for the period from the date of dismissal/return of LARs, to the date of filing of these Writ Petitions.
6.
In the case of Narayan Deorao Gore (died) through L.Rs. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011(3)Mh.L.J. 592, this Court has held that the LARs should be decided on merits. The claimant must be given sufficient and full opportunity to put forth his case. The claim need not be discarded on technicality of not adducing documentary evidence.
7.
In the similar facts and circumstances of the cases referred to herein above (WP 12795 of 2019 and ors.), this
Court allowed those petitions setting aside the orders impugned therein. Similar treatment is, therefore, required to be given to the petitioners herein. The petitioners are poor agriculturists. The petitioners, however, would not be entitled for interest on the amount enhanced, if any, in their respective LARs from the dates of dismissal/return of their LAR to the date of filing of these Writ Petitions.
8.
In view of the above, the Writ Petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (i) The orders impugned in these Writ Petitions are set aside. Respective LARs are restored to the file of respective courts. The petitioners shall appear before the Courts concerned on 05.02.2021.
(ii) The petitioners shall tender their affidavits in lieu of examination-in-chief before the L.A.R. Courts concerned, on or before 20.02.2021.
(iii) The L.A.R. Court shall then decide said proceedings at the earliest and preferably, on or before 31.12.2021.
(iv) The petitioners shall not be entitled for interest component, in the event of enhancement of compensation, from the date on which the LARs were dismissed/returned to LAO, to the date of filing of these Writ Petitions. (v) In the event these petitioners unnecessarily delay the proceedings and do not lead evidence as directed, the L.A.R. Court would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders. [R.G. AVACHAT, J.] KBP