Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original claimants in a land acquisition reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenged the judgment and order dated 02.01.2020 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad in LAR No. 328 of 2014, which rejected the reference for non-prosecution. The land of the petitioners was acquired by the respondents (State of Maharashtra and others) and an award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 07.06.2002 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Dissatisfied with the compensation, the petitioners applied for a reference under Section 18 on 11.04.2014, claiming enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,22,500/- per acre. The reference was referred to the Collector, Osmanabad. Before the reference court, issues were framed on 24.09.2018, but the petitioners failed to adduce any evidence from 30.08.2014 till 02.01.2020, leading to the dismissal of the reference. The petitioners contended that due to a communication gap with their counsel, they were unaware of the dates and progress of the reference, and thus could not lead evidence. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the petitioners were denied a fair opportunity to present their case. The court observed that the reference court ought to have given an opportunity to the claimants to lead evidence, especially when the delay was attributable to the counsel's failure to communicate. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter back to the reference court for fresh adjudication on merits. The reference court was directed to decide the reference afresh after giving both sides an opportunity to lead evidence and to make every endeavor to dispose of the reference as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year from the date of receipt of the order. Rule was made absolute accordingly.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Reference under Section 18 - Dismissal for Default - Communication Gap - The petitioners, claimants in a land acquisition reference, failed to adduce evidence due to a communication gap with their counsel, leading to dismissal of the reference. The High Court held that the claimants were denied a fair opportunity to present their case and remanded the matter to the reference court for fresh adjudication, directing the reference court to decide the reference on merits after giving both sides an opportunity to lead evidence. (Paras 1-6) B) Land Acquisition - Reference under Section 18 - Remand - Opportunity of Hearing - The High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction, set aside the impugned order dated 02.01.2020 passed by the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad in LAR No. 328 of 2014, and remanded the matter back to the reference court for fresh decision on merits, emphasizing that the claimants should not be penalized for the counsel's failure to communicate. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reference court's dismissal for default due to non-adduction of evidence by claimants, caused by a communication gap with their counsel, warrants remand for fresh adjudication.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 02.01.2020 passed by the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad in LAR No. 328 of 2014, and remanded the matter back to the reference court for fresh adjudication on merits. The reference court was directed to decide the reference afresh after giving both sides an opportunity to lead evidence and to dispose of the reference as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year from the date of receipt of the order. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 18
- Reference
- Remand
- Communication gap
- Opportunity of hearing
