Bhagwant Tulshiram Bijwe (Dead), Through His Lrs. v. The State Of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Amravati And Another

2025:BHC-NAG:3860

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 200 OF 2025 (Bhagwant Tulshiram Bijwe (dead) through LRs Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. P.P. Sarise with Mr. Vicky Gokhale, Counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. K.R. Lule, A.G.P. for the respondents/State. .....

CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE, J.

APRIL 15, 2025 Heard.

2] It appears that the Reference filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "Act of 1894"), has been dismissed for want of prosecution. The order reads as under :

"The appellant and advocate absent when called out. No application and No cause has been shown. Hence, award is confirmed on failure to lead evidence."

3] The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chandaba w/o Gangaram Pauyed Vs. State of Maharashtra and others [2023(4) Mh.L.J. 292], by referring to various judgments, has held that dismissal of the reference on the ground of non-adducing of documentary or oral evidence by the claimant cannot be said to be an award on merits. Accordingly, the reference was remitted back to the reference Court with a rider that the claimants will not be entitled to any interest on the

enhanced amount of compensation, if awarded from the date of dismissal of reference till final disposal. 4] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khazan Singh (Dead) By Lrs Vs. Union of India [(2002) 2 SCC 242], in paragraph 7, has held that the provisions above subsumed would thus make it clear that the civil court has to pass an award in answer to the reference made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. If any party to whom notice has been served by the civil court did not participate in the inquiry it would only be at his risk because an award would be passed perhaps to the detriment of the party concerned. But nonparticipation of any party would not confer jurisdiction on the civil court to dismiss the reference for default. 5] That being so, since the order is apparently contrary to the settled principles of law and since the land of the petitioners has been compulsorily acquired, in my view, the petitioners should be afforded an opportunity with a condition that for the intervening period, they will not be entitled for interest. Hence, following order :

ORDER

I] The petition is allowed.

II] Order dated 11/6/2002 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Achalpur, in L.A.C. No. 19/1995, is quashed and set aside.

III] L.A.C. No. 19/1995 is restored on the file of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Achalpur, for decision afresh in accordance with law with a rider that the

petitioners will not be entitled for interest, including interest on statutory benefits, from the date of dismissal of suit till filing of petition.

IV] The petitioners shall appear before the trial Court on 7/5/2025.

6] The petition is disposed of in above terms.

No costs.

(ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) Sumit