SHRI NASHIK PANCHAVATI PANJARPOL TRUST Vs. THE CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondent no. 1- Market Committee had preferred two First Appeals being Nos. 1447 of 2006 and 1490 of 2006 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging the award dtd. 7/3/2006 passed by the II Adhoc Additional District Judge, Nashik (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court') in Land Reference No. 525 of 1997. The High Court vide the impugned judgment and order dtd. 23/9/2009 allowed the First Appeal No. 1447 of 2006 and set aside the award dtd. 7/3/2006 passed by the Reference Court, and remanded the matter to the Reference Court to decide the question as to whether the Reference made to the Reference Court was within the limitation as per Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and decide the Reference afresh. The High Court vide the separate order of the even date, disposed of the First Appeal No. 1490 of 2006 observing that in view of the order passed in First Appeal No. 1447 of 2006, the appeal had become infructuous. The appellant- trust has preferred the instant appeals being aggrieved by the judgments and orders passed in First Appeal Nos. 1447 of 2006 and 1490 of 2006 by the High Court.

(2.) Though the case has a chequered history, the bare facts necessary for the purpose of deciding the present appeals may be summarised as under:

(3.) The learned senior counsel Mr. B.H. Marlapalle appearing for the appellant- trust submitted that findings arrived at by the High Court with regard to the issue of limitation are ex facie erroneous. According to him, though the consent terms, more particularly, clause (c) thereof was not happily worded, the High Court while disposing of the Writ Petition vide the order dtd. 20/10/1997 had specifically directed the Reference Court to determine the market value of the lands in question as on 17/12/1994 as agreed between the parties, and therefore, the respondents could not have raised the issue of limitation contained in Sec. 18 of the Act. He further submitted that both the parties had to act in terms of the order passed by the High Court based on the consent terms, and therefore the respondent- Committee could not have raised the issue of limitation under Sec. 18.