LAXMIBAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the petitioners are agriculturists having their lands at villages Kushnoor, Ghungrala and Saverkheda, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. It is the contention of the petitioners that though their lands are different, however action taken by respondent No. 2 is common against all the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners have filed this common Civil Revision Application.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that notification under section 32(1) and (2) of the M.I.D.C. Act was published in the official Gazette on 20-12-1993 and on 23-12-1993. The petitioners were not made aware about acquisition proceedings of their lands. The notice under section 12(2) was served on the petitioners, when the petitioners were gone for accepting amount under the award. It is further case of the petitioners that they came to know about acquisition of their lands for the first time when they received notice under section 12(2) of the Act. They have withdrawn the amount under protest and initiated to submit Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners therefore, submitted Reference application under section 18 of the Act within prescribed period of limitation, as contemplated under section 18 of the Act. It is further case of the petitioners that some of the petitioners could not pay the Court fees along with the Reference Application. The Reference Applications were filed within period of limitation. It is specific contentions of the petitioners that it is not necessary or even contemplated under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act that the amount of Court fees should be deposited along with the Reference Application.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submitted that the claimants are bound to pay the Court fees at the time of filing Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act only. He further submitted that there is no exemption from payment of Court fees. Learned counsel invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kashi Ram (supra) and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that the judgment in the said case shall not be construed to mean that it had overriding effect to Article 15 of Schedule 1 of the Act in case where the provision applies. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the counsel for respondent No. 3 that the claimants are bound to pay the Court fees even at the time of filing of application. Therefore, he submitted that respondent No. 2 has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned A.G.P. has adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of respondent No. 3.