Shivaji Raybhan Ingale v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 2694 OF 2019 SHIVAJI RAYBHAN INGALE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.M. Hajare AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 : Ms. D.S. Jape Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. S.G. Sangle ....

CORAM : S.G. DIGE, J.

DATE : 15th July, 2022 ORDER :

.

Heard learned Counsel for appellant and learned Counsel for respondent No.3.

2.

Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that, claimant had fled reference petition before the learned reference Court. In the said petition, claimant had added respondent No.3 as Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division Local Sector, Aurangabad. Accordingly, the notice was issued to respondent No.3, which was served but none appears for respondent No.3. Hence, matter

{2} proceeded ex-parte against respondent No.3. Learned Counsel for appellant further submits that, it was the fault of the original claimant to add respondent No.3 as party. It should have been The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No.1, Aurangabad hence, requested to remand back the matter for proper adjudication as contesting party is respondent No.3.

3.

Learned Counsel for appellant further submits that, original reference was fled at Aurangabad but thereafter, the matters was transferred to Vaijaupur so there was communication gap between lawyer and appellant. Hence, appellant could not put the evidence before the learned Reference Court.

4.

Learned Counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that, this Court may pass appropriate orders. 5.

I have heard both the learned Counsel and perused judgment and award passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Divison, Vaijapur in L.A.R. No. 439 of 2010. The learned Trial Court has observed that, claimant has not

{3} adduced the oral as well as documentary evidence. Further there is no sale instance on record to compare the market price of the acquired land at the time of publication of notifcation under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Claimant failed to prove that, the nature of acquired land was either perennially irrigated or seasonally irrigated. In absence of any positive evidence to that efect it cannot be said that, the claimant is entitle to enhance compensation for the acquired property. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the reference of original claimant/appellant.

6.

In my view, appellant had fled reference petition before the learned Reference Court for enhancement of compensation. Appellant is poor farmer, sufcient chance needs to be given to adduce evidence in respect of his claim as the matter was originally fled at Aurangabad and thereafter it was transferred to Vaijapur Court. Hence appellant did not get chance to adduce evidence. Respondent No.3 was wrongly added as party before the learned reference Court, it is necessary to correct it,

{4} hence, I pass the following order :-

ORDER

a.

Matter is remanded back to the learned Reference Court for fresh hearing. Appellant shall appear before the learned Reference Court.

b.

Record and proceedings be sent back to the learned reference Court.

c.

Learned reference Court shall decide the matter on its own merits after considering the evidence laid by both the parties. If the parties failed to adduce evidence the learned Reference Court shall pass appropriate orders. d.

If learned Reference Court considers enhancement of amount in that case, appellant is not entitled for the interest and statutory benefts for the delayed period i.e. from 25th February, 2017 till today, as he is seeking remand of matter.

(S.G. DIGE, J.)