Whether Subsequent Reconstruction Of File Records will Change the Original Filing Date of the Petition?

 In our view, merely because the record in the Office of the Respondent No.2 was not traceable and were allowed to be reconstructed pursuant to the letter dated 30th March 2019 by the Petitioners on 17th June 2019, the date of reconstruction of the papers and proceedings on 17th June 2019 could not be considered as the date of filing such application under Section 18(2)(a) of the said Act. The application was already filed as far back as on 13th September 2004, which was within the time prescribed under Section 18(2)(a) of the said Act and thus the Respondents ought to have considered the date of filing the said application as on 13th September 2004 and not the date of reconstruction of the papers and proceedings in the said application filed under Section 18 of the said Act.

17. In our view, the impugned Order is passed totally without application of mind on the part of the Respondent No.2 in rejecting the application on the ground that the same was filed after 15 years and contrary to Section 18(2)(a) of the said Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1150 OF 2020

Mahadev Sadhu Ingale.  Vs The State Of Maharashtra 

CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA &

S. M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 3rd FEBRUARY 2022.

Author : R.D. Dhanuka, J.

Print Page

Whether reference made under land acquisition will be time barred if record was reconstructed as it was missing from office of collector?

  In our view, merely because the record in the Office of the Respondent No.2 was not traceable and were allowed to be reconstructed pursuant to the letter dated 30th March 2019 by the Petitioners on 17th June 2019, the date of reconstruction of the papers and proceedings on 17th June 2019 could not be considered as the date of filing such application under Section 18(2)(a) of the said Act. The application was already filed as far back as on 13th September 2004, which was within the time prescribed under Section 18(2)(a) of the said Act and thus the Respondents ought to have considered the date of filing the said application as on 13th September 2004 and not the date of reconstruction of the papers and proceedings in the said application filed under Section 18 of the said Act. {Para 16}

17. In our view, the impugned Order is passed totally without application of mind on the part of the Respondent No.2 in rejecting the application on the ground that the same was filed after 15 years and contrary to Section 18(2)(a) of the said Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1150 OF 2020

Mahadev Sadhu Ingale  Vs  The State Of Maharashtra 

CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA & S. M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 3rd FEBRUARY 2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : R.D. Dhanuka, J.) :-

Print Page

Bom HC: Revision is not maintainable against order passed otherwise than on merits in application U/S 18 of land acquisition Act

31. In the result, we hold as under:

(A) that a civil revision application u/s. 115 of C.P.C. against, any order passed, otherwise than on merits, in an application u/s. 18 of the L.A. Act by the Civil Court, is not maintainable.

(B) We also hold that the judgments in the case of Kawadu Madhav Bansod, Appasaheb Mohanrao Chede, Kamlakar Laxman Suryawanshi and Irnappa @ Irappa Angire (supra), holding that a civil revision application is maintainable, are rendered per-incuriam to the statutory provisions as contained in the proviso to subsection (1) of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and are also rendered per- incuriam in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Shakti (supra).

(C) We also hold that an 'order otherwise than on merits', passed in proceedings u/s. 18 of the L.A. Act, by the Civil Court, cannot be considered as an award and, therefore, does not amount to a decree, as defined in Section 2(2) of C.P.C. by virtue of the deeming provision u/s. 26(2) of the L.A. Act and, therefore, an appeal against it also would not be maintainable.

(D) We hold that the judgment in Venkat's case (supra), holding that an appeal is maintainable, is on a different footing altogether considering that the judgment passed therein was on merits after considering the evidence and, therefore, was an award and consequently a decree u/s. 2(2) of C.P.C. by application of Section 26(2) of the L.A. Act.

(E) We further hold that a reference u/s. 18 of the L.A. Act, in the light of the mandate as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khazan Singh (supra), has to be decided by the Civil Court on the basis of the material before it, on merits.

(F) We further hold that an 'order passed otherwise than on merits' in proceedings u/s. 18 of the L.A. Act by the Civil Court, in case it has been so passed, would be susceptible to a challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction, or u/o IX Rule 9 r/w. Sec. 151 CPC. by virtue of section 53 of the L.A. Act.

32. The reference is, thus, answered accordingly.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Civil Revision Application Nos. 63 of 2017, 187 of 2015, 78, 79, 80, 81 of 2017

Decided On: 17.10.2019

 Diwakar Prabhakar Chopade Vs. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Sillod District and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.B. Varale and Avinash G. Gharote, JJ.

Print Page

Whether reference court can reduce compensation granted by land acquisition officer?

Reference Court cannot grant compensation, which is lower than what is granted by the LAO. In other words, in a reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Reference Court, cannot reduce the compensation granted by the LAO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Writ Petition No. 608 of 2014

Decided On: 05.03.2019

 Corporation of the City of Panaji  Vs.  The Deputy Collector (LA) & Land Acquisition Officer, Collectorate, Panaji and Ors.

Print Page

Reference under S. 18 for enhanced compensation can be sought by claimant after an order of apportionment is passed

Madan v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 2 SCC 720

Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Ss. 18 and 30 - Relative scope and applicability - Limitation period under S. 18, when commences in a case where no

apportionment is made by Collector i.e. when S. 30 applies - S. 18 applies to situations where apportionment made in

award is objected to by a beneficiary thereunder while S. 30 applies when no apportionment whatsoever is made by

Collector on account of conflicting claims - Thus, held, a reference under S. 18 for enhanced compensation can be

legitimately sought by the claimant after an order of apportionment is passed either by the court in reference under S. 30

or in a civil suit in his favour, and limitation period under S. 18(2) shall in such a case only commence from date when

such order/award of apportionment is either communicated to the party concerned or is known by the party concerned

either actually or constructively, 

Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Print Page

Meaning of person interested in land acquisition reference

The definition of 'a person interested' given in Section 18 is an inclusive definition and must be liberally construed so as to embrace

all persons who may be directly or indirectly interested either in the title to the land or in the quantum of compensation.

the Apex Court has held the term person interested

includes any person for whose benefit the land is acquired.  The term

should be liberally construed so as to include a body, local authority or a

company for whose benefit the land is acquired.

Supreme Court of India

Union Of India vs Sher Singh And Ors on 28 January, 1993

Equivalent citations: 1993 SCR (1) 326, 1993 SCC (1) 608

BENCH:
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
KULDIP SINGH (J)

Print Page