Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Appasheb s/o Mohanrao Chede, owned land bearing Gat No. 489/A and 488/B situated at village Washi, Taluka Washi, District Osmanabad. The respondent authorities acquired this land for the construction of a percolation tank at village Washi. The Land Acquisition Officer issued a notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 24.3.1994 and subsequently passed an award granting compensation at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount, the petitioner filed a Land Acquisition Reference under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, being L.A.R. No. 636 of 2000. The Reference Court, by order dated 19.8.2009, dismissed the reference on the ground that the petitioner had not led any evidence to show that the compensation granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The petitioner's counsel argued that the impugned order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice, and that the reference ought to have been decided on merits rather than being dismissed on technicalities. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Kawadu Madhav Bansod v. State of Maharashtra & another, reported in 2004(4) Bom.C.R. 495, which held that a reference cannot be rejected solely for the reason that the revision petitioner failed to adduce evidence. The respondent State justified the impugned order, contending that it was not erroneous. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the impugned judgment and order deserved to be interfered with. The Court clarified that the Civil Revision Application was maintainable in view of the law laid down in Kawadu Madhav Bansod (supra). The Court held that the Reference Court erred in dismissing the reference merely because the petitioner failed to lead evidence. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication on merits, directing that the parties be given an opportunity to lead evidence and that the reference be decided afresh in accordance with law. The rule was made absolute accordingly.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Reference under Section 18 - Dismissal for want of evidence - The Reference Court dismissed the claimant's reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 solely because the claimant did not lead evidence to show that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. The High Court held that such dismissal is unsustainable as the reference must be decided on merits and not on technicalities. The Court relied on Kawadu Madhav Bansod v. State of Maharashtra, 2004(4) Bom.C.R. 495, which held that a reference cannot be rejected only for failure to adduce evidence. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after giving opportunity to both parties. (Paras 3-9) B) Civil Procedure - Maintainability of Revision - Dismissal of Land Acquisition Reference - A Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is maintainable against an order dismissing a Land Acquisition Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as held in Kawadu Madhav Bansod v. State of Maharashtra, 2004(4) Bom.C.R. 495. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Land Acquisition Reference can be dismissed solely on the ground that the claimant failed to adduce evidence to show inadequacy of compensation, without deciding the reference on merits.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Application, set aside the impugned order dated 19.8.2009 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad in L.A.R. No. 636 of 2000, and remanded the matter back to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication on merits. The parties were directed to appear before the Reference Court on 29.11.2010, and the Reference Court was directed to decide the reference afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both parties to lead evidence. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition Reference cannot be dismissed solely for failure to adduce evidence
- Reference Court must decide on merits
- Principles of natural justice require opportunity of hearing
- Civil Revision Application maintainable against dismissal of reference
