Case Note & Summary
The revision petitioner, Nagnath s/o Mallikarjun Waze, was the owner of land Survey No. 187 admeasuring 0.14 R situated at Tuljapur, District Osmanabad. The land was acquired by the State of Maharashtra for the purpose of a market yard. Land acquisition proceedings were initiated and a final Award was passed. Dissatisfied with the Award, the petitioner filed Land Acquisition Reference No. 81 of 1991 before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who forwarded it to the Civil Court for adjudication. The learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad, dismissed the reference on two grounds: first, that the petitioner had not adduced any evidence to show that the Award suffered from a material defect; and second, that the petitioner had not impleaded the acquiring body as a party, resulting in non-joinder of a necessary party. The petitioner challenged this dismissal by filing a Civil Revision Application before the Bombay High Court. The High Court heard the counsel for both sides. The petitioner's counsel argued that the reference should not have been dismissed on technicalities and ought to have been decided on merits, relying on the judgment in Kawadu Madhav Bansod Vs. State of Maharashtra & another, 2004(4) Bom.C.R. 495, which held that a reference cannot be rejected merely because the claimant failed to adduce evidence. The State's counsel submitted that the Reference Court had given sufficient opportunity and the petitioner failed to avail it. The High Court, after considering the submissions and the cited precedent, held that the dismissal was improper. The Court noted that the acquiring body is not a necessary party in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and non-joinder is not fatal. The Court also held that the reference cannot be dismissed solely for failure to adduce evidence. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and order and remanded the matter to the Reference Court for fresh decision on merits, directing the parties to appear on 11th October 2010.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Reference - Dismissal on Technical Grounds - Sections 18, 30 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The Reference Court dismissed the reference on two grounds: failure of claimant to adduce evidence and non-joinder of acquiring body. The High Court held that the reference cannot be rejected merely because the claimant failed to adduce evidence, and non-joinder of the acquiring body is not fatal. The matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits. (Paras 3-8) B) Land Acquisition - Reference - Non-Joinder of Party - Sections 18, 30 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The acquiring body is not a necessary party in a land acquisition reference under Section 18. The reference cannot be dismissed for non-joinder of the acquiring body. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Land Acquisition Reference can be dismissed solely on the ground that the claimant failed to adduce evidence and did not implead the acquiring body as a party.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 30th November 2009 passed by the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad in Land Acquisition Reference No. 81 of 1991 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Reference Court for fresh decision on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court on 11th October 2010.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition Reference cannot be dismissed for failure to adduce evidence or non-joinder of acquiring body if claimant is not at fault
- Reference Court must decide on merits
