Pandharinath Balaji Talekar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8823 OF 2021 Pandharinath S/o Balaji Talekar.

Age: 69 years, Occ: Agril., R/o. Chandai- Eko, Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. ....PETITIONER [Original Claimant]

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna.

2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhokardan, Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

3. The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division, Jalna Tq. Jalna, Dist. Jalna. ....RESPONDENTS [Orig. Respondents] Mr. D.A. Mane h/f. Mr. D.M. Pingale, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Y.G. Gujarathi, AGP for Respondent/State. .......

[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] DATE : 27 th JUNE, 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2.

This petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns the judgment and order dated

{2} 27.09.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 2238/2010, thereby rejecting the land acquisition reference as the petitioner failed to adduce evidence.

3.

Indisputably the issue involved in this petition is already covered by the judgment of this Court (Coram: V.K. Jadhav, J.) in Writ Petition No. 12795 of 2019 and connected writ petitions, wherein this Court has held that the reference has to be decided on merits. Since, in those matters, references were rejected due to failure on the part of the petitioners therein to adduce evidence, this Court has held that the reference Court did not decide the references on merits and therefore set aside the orders passed by the reference Court and restored the references and directed to decide the references on merits. 4.

Admittedly, in the present case also the reference is not decided on merits and the same is rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner failed to adduce evidence. The present case is therefore squarely covered by the above-referred decision. Hence, the following order:-

{3}

ORDER

(I) The writ petition is allowed.

(II) The impugned judgment and order dated 27.09.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 2238/2010 is hereby quashed and set aside.

(III) The matter is relegated back to the concerned reference Court for decision on merits, after giving an opportunity to the respective parties. (IV) The reference Court shall expedite the hearing of the matter and decide the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. Parties to co-operate.

(V) Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

[NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]