SAU PUSHPADEVI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. Heard Shri S.U. Nemade, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Sonare, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

(2.) As a common question of fact and law is involved in all the three petitions, the said petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. It is also to be noticed that all the three petitions arise out of the same notification, acquiring the lands of the petitioners. The petitioners were owners in possession of agricultural land situated in village Ghol in Amravati district. Their lands came to be acquired for "Yenas Percolation Tank" by the State Government. Consequent upon acquisition, proceedings for passing of the award were taken up under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and ultimately, an award came to be passed under Section 11 by the 2nd respondent - Land Acquisition Officer. The award was passed on 18-10-1999, whereas in the case of Gangaram, the award was passed on 16-10-1999. After receipt of notices by the petitioners under Sections 12(2) of the Act, it is undisputed that Reference Applications have been filed within time before the Collector under Section 18 of the Act. In Writ Petition No. 618/02, the petitioners had prayed for grant of time to pay the Court fee and the Court fee has been paid, though not at the time of filing of application seeking reference but thereafter, whereas in the other two writ petitions, though reference applications were admittedly filed in time, the Court fee has not been paid even till today and time was sought before the Collector for payment of the Court fee.

(3.) The Reference Applications are rejected by the impugned orders mainly on the ground that Court fee has not been paid along with the application seeking reference under Section 18, though other grounds are also stated in the impugned orders. The learned A.G.P. concedes that the other grounds stated in the order are not germane and specifically he admits that the applications are filed within limitation. In this view of the matter, the only question that is required to be answered is - as to whether the failure to pay the Court fee along with the application seeking reference under Section 18 would be fatal to such an application requiring rejection of the Application or could the petitioners be granted time to pay the Court fee.