Dilip Devrao Lawate v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

1 WP - 9068-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9068 OF 2016 Dilip S/o Devrao Lawate, Age : 55 years, Occu. Agri., R/o Bansode Nagar, Ambajogai Road, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur .. Petitioner

Versus

1] The State of Maharashtra Through District Collector, Latur, District - Latur 2] The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Latur, Dist. Latur 3] The Executive Engineer, Railway Department, Solapur Proper Address :- Deputy Chief Engineer, {Construction}, Office of the Dy. C.E. (c) Central Railway, Pune, Dist. Pune .. (Original respondents - Respondents no. 1 to 3) 4] Tukabai w/o Gulabrao Fulade, Age : 65 years, Occu. Household 5] Nagarabai w/o Narayan Bande, Age : 62 years, Occu. Household 6] Sunita W/o Shitalnath Kondekar, Age : 45 years, Occu. Household, Respondent No.4 to 6 R/o Harangul, Tq. and Dist. Latur .. Respondents (Orig. Claimants 4 to 6 Respondent 4 to 6)

2 WP - 9068-2016 ...

Mr. S.V. Gundre, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.N. Morampalle, AGP for respondent-State Mr. M.N. Navandar, Advocate for respondent no.3 Mr. S.B. Madde, Advocate for respondents no. 4 to 6 ...

CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 20-06-2018 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties finally, by consent.

3.

Aggrieved by order passed on exhibit - 54 in land acquisition reference no. 284 of 2003 pending before 2nd joint civil judge senior division, Latur dated 04-04-2016, the petitioner is before this court. Exhibit - 54 has been moved by the petitioner seeking amendment as have been referred to.

4.

There is no dispute about the factual position that initially, reference had been filed by the petitioner for 35 Are land acquired by the acquiring authority. However, upon realizing that the petitioner, before notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had been issued, had parted with 15 Are land, selling the same to different persons, he thought it fit to restrict the claim in reference to 20 Are land which had remained in

3 WP - 9068-2016 his ownership while the notification had been issued. Accordingly, amendment had been made in the reference application. Subsequently, it so happened that the purchasers from the petitioner got themselves impleaded as claimants in the land acquisition reference filed by the petitioner. 5.

Apprehending that the purchasers may probably claim compensation which he may receive in respect of 20 Are of land retained under the ownership of the petitioner, he had moved application exhibit - 54 referred to above for re-instituting the deleted 15 Are land and making up claim under reference to entire 35 Are land acquired. Under application - exhibit 54, the petitioner had further claimed that the claim as appearing in the original reference filed making reference to Rs.100/- per square foot as the rate of land, the same may be allowed to be amended to Rs.200/- per square foot in accordance with the prevailing market conditions at the time of notification.

6.

While the court has purportedly rejected the application, it has observed in paragraph no.9 of its order, thus, " ९. मी पकरणाची पाहणी केली. सदर पकरण करतेवेळी अजरदाराने सवतः भूसंपादन अिधकाऱयाकडे िद. ३.२.२००० ला असा अजर िदला होता की, तयाचया ३५ गुंठे जिमनीपैकी तयाने १५ गुंठाचे पलॉटस इतर लोकांना िवकी

4 WP - 9068-2016 केली असून, सदरील पलॉटची रककम तया तया वयकीना अजरदाराने संमती िदली आहे व अजरदाराचया मालकी व कबजेतील २० गुंठे जमीन गेली आहे व हीच बाब तयाने परत िद. २१.१२.१९९९ चया पतातसुदा कथन केलेली आहे. यावरन अजरदार सवतः कबुल करतो की, तयाची फक २० गुंठे जमीन भूसंपािदत झाली आहे व १५ आर. जमीन इतर लोकांना िवकली आहे. तयामुळे ते पलॉट धारक भूसंपादन जिमनीचा वाढीव मावेजा िमळणयाचा अजर दाखल करणयाची शकयता नाकारता येत नाही व अजरदाराने जिमनीचा वाढीव मोबदला मािगतलेला आहे व जर, पुरावयात अजरदाराने मागणी केलया पमाणे वाढीव मोबदला िमळणयास तो पात असेल तर नयायालय तसा वाढीव मोबदला अजरदाराला देऊ शकतो व तयाचया कडून रािहलेले मुदांक शुलक वसूल कर शकते. "

7.

In the circumstances, having regard to the observations which have been reproduced hereinabove, instead of leaving the matter to probability, as the purchasers are contended to be already claimants in the reference filed by petitioner, the amendment of re-institution of 15 Are land would be relevant. It may be expedient for the parties to let assert the claim with regard to rate as desired, since it is their responsibility to establish the same. It is matter of evidence. In such a case, amendment in respect of the same may not be declined on technical reasons.

5 WP - 9068-2016 8.

As such, eschewing all the technical and procedural requirements, it would be expedient to allow the application. 9.

In view of aforesaid, impugned order on exhibit - 54 dated 04-04-2016 passed by 2nd joint civil judge senior division, Latur is set aside and application exhibit - 54 stands allowed. 10.

Writ Petition stands disposed of.

11.

Rule made absolute accordingly.

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH] JUDGE arp/