LAWS(BOM)-2002-8-3

SHIVAJI Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

Decided On August 13, 2002
SHIVAJI Appellant
V/S
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application is directed against the order dated 4-1-1996 rejecting an application by the present applicants for substitution of their names as legal representatives of one Janglu, who was the original landholder of the land in question.

(2.) FACTS not in dispute stated briefly are: That Revenue Case No. 22/a-65/78-79 was started by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nagpur for acquiring certain lands for a public purpose. Certain lands belonging to Janglu s/o Bhagwan Wanjari were also acquired and an Award was, therefore, made ultimately by Special Land Acquisition Officer on 30-10-1983. Notice of making the Award was received by Janglu the original landholder on 2-11-1983. He, therefore, made an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act requiring making of a reference under that section as he was not satisfied by the amount of compensation awarded for the acquisition of his land. After this application under section 18 was made, the original landholder Janglu died on 1-3-1984.

(3.) ON 7-7-1984 an application along with Vakalatnama was filed before the Special Land Acquisition Officer by the present applicants seeking the substitution of their names as legal representatives of deceased Janglu as the litigation survived the deceased and the cause of action was liable to be inherited by the petitioners. This application was not adjudicated upon by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Somewhere in 1986 he made the reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and transmitted the reference to the appropriate Court as contemplated by that section. The original application claiming reference was treated as claims statement and State was asked to file its reply which came to be filed on 6-11-1987. Though an order calling for record of the main Land Acquisition Case was made, factually record was never produced and consequently, the Counsel for the applicants was under an impression that the original application dated 7-7-1984 for substitution must have been allowed and, therefore, proceeded to conduct the reference on behalf of the applicants.