Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, heard first appeals arising from a common judgment and order dated 25-07-2012 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna. The original claimants had sought enhancement of compensation for land acquired under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. The Reference Court, while considering other aspects and enhancing compensation, rejected the claim petitions on the ground that they were barred by limitation. The appellants contended that they had received compensation on 10-11-1993 and on the same day filed written applications before the Competent Authority accepting the amount under protest and seeking enhancement, which was within the 60-day period prescribed by Section 34 of the MID Act. The Reference Court had observed that the letters filed by the appellants were not considered as reference petitions and that there was a three-day delay. The High Court examined Section 34 of the MID Act, which provides that any person aggrieved by the decision of the Collector determining compensation may, within sixty days from the date of such decision, by written application to the Collector require that the matter be referred for determination of the Court as defined in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court held that Section 34 does not prescribe any form of petition and only requires a written application. The written applications filed by the appellants seeking enhancement were sufficient to prove that they were seeking enhancement. The observation of the Reference Court regarding three days delay was set aside as there was no delay. Consequently, the High Court held that the reference petitions were within limitation. Both parties requested an opportunity for fresh hearing. The Court partly allowed the appeals, set aside the limitation finding, and remanded the matters back to the Reference Court for fresh hearing only on the issue whether the rate determined by the Reference Court is proper or not. The parties were directed to appear on 21-11-2022, and the Reference Court was requested to dispose of the matters within three months from receipt of the order.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Reference under Section 34 of Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 - Requirement of written application within 60 days - The Court held that Section 34 does not prescribe a form and the written applications filed by claimants on the same day as receipt of compensation under protest satisfied the statutory requirement; the Reference Court's observation of three days delay was erroneous - Held that reference petitions were within limitation and appeals partly allowed with remand for fresh hearing on rate (Paras 5-6)
B) Remand - Fresh Hearing on Quantum - Reference Court directed to give fresh hearing only on rate determined - Both parties submitted for opportunity of fresh hearing and evidence already on record - Held that matters remanded back to 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna for fresh hearing on whether rate determined by Reference Court is proper, with direction to dispose within three months (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reference petitions filed by the appellants before the Reference Court were within limitation under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961
Final Decision
Appeals partly allowed. The observation of the Reference Court regarding limitation was set aside, and the reference petitions were held to be within limitation. The matters were remanded back to the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna for fresh hearing on the issue whether the rate determined by the Reference Court is proper or not. Both parties were directed to appear on 21-11-2022, and the Reference Court was requested to dispose of the matters within three months from receipt of the order. Record and proceedings were to be sent back. Appeals disposed of.
Law Points
- Section 34 of MID Act requires only a written application to the Collector within 60 days
- no prescribed form
- a written application seeking enhancement under protest is sufficient
- limitation satisfied when filed on same day as receipt of compensation
- rejection on ground of three days delay set aside
- remand for fresh hearing on quantum
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (10) 32
First Appeal No.1030 of 2014 with First Appeal Nos.1031 of 2014, 1032 of 2014, 1033 of 2014, and 1034 of 2014
Amit A. Mukhedkar, S.N. Morampalle, S.S. Dande
Kesharbai w/o Deorao Khole (Died) through L.Rs Rushindhar s/o Deorao Khole, Baban s/o Deorao Khole, Parwatabai w/o Hiraman Limbalkar, Meenabai w/o Govindrao Sable, Baburao s/o Deorao Khole; Baburao s/o Deorao Khole; Baban s/o Deorao Khole; Sugandhabai Raghuji Kharat (died) through L.Rs Smt.Ramkor w/o Jagannath Kharat and Aakash s/o Jagannath Kharat; Kailas s/o Raghuji Kharat
The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Jalna; Sub-Divisional Officer, Partur (Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961); The Regional Manager, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Station Road, Aurangabad
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
First appeals against common judgment and order dated 25-07-2012 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna, rejecting land acquisition reference petitions on ground of limitation.
Remedy Sought
Appellants (original claimants) sought to set aside the Reference Court's finding on limitation and to have their claim petitions considered for enhanced compensation.
Filing Reason
The Reference Court rejected the claim petitions as time-barred, although it considered other aspects and enhanced compensation, prompting the appellants to appeal.
Previous Decisions
The 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna, by common judgment dated 25-07-2012, rejected the reference petitions on limitation but made observations enhancing compensation.
Issues
Whether the reference petitions filed by the appellants before the Reference Court were within limitation under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants contended that they received compensation on 10-11-1993 and on the same day filed written applications before respondent No.2 accepting the amount under protest and seeking enhancement; these applications were within the 60-day period prescribed by Section 34 and were sufficient as written applications, as no form is prescribed.
Respondent No.3 contended that no evidence was produced to prove that claim petitions were filed before respondent No.2 authority for reference, and the Reference Court's judgment was legal and valid.
Both parties submitted during appeal that an opportunity of fresh hearing be given.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 requires only a written application to the Collector within 60 days from the date of the Collector's decision for reference to the Court, and does not prescribe any particular form. A written application filed by a claimant accepting compensation under protest and seeking enhancement is sufficient to constitute a reference petition. The Reference Court's rejection of reference petitions on the ground that such letters were not considered as reference petitions, or on an alleged three-day delay, was erroneous.
Judgment Excerpts
The issue involved in these appeals is whether the claim petitions filed by the appellants before the Reference Court were within limitation or not.
Section 34 does not provide a form of petition, it states about written application.
Written applications for enhancement are sufficient to prove that appellants were seeking enhancement.
It is observed by the Reference Court that there is three days delay, it should be filed within 60 days. As observed earlier, there is no delay for filing the claim petitions. Hence, observation of the Reference Court regarding issue of limitation is set aside.
Procedural History
On 10-11-1993, the appellants received compensation from the acquiring body and filed written applications before respondent No.2 (Competent Authority) accepting the amount under protest and seeking enhancement. On 25-07-2012, the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna passed a common judgment rejecting the reference petitions on the ground of limitation, despite considering other aspects and enhancing compensation. The appellants then preferred First Appeal Nos.1030 to 1034 of 2014 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. On 17-10-2022, the High Court partly allowed the appeals and remanded the matters for fresh hearing on quantum.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961: Section 34
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Part III
