STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SONA HARI BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - All these four revision applications raise a similar question for consideration out of orders passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and that is why, with consent all these four revision applications are heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) Petitioners in all these revision applications had laid their claims before the Land Acquisition Officer after their lands were acquired by the State Government. After considering the material before him the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Parbhani, passed an award in respect of the acquisitions. Within the prescribed period of limitation all these petitioners sought for a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and accordingly, they forwarded their applications for reference to the Land Acquisition Officer. All of them were financially not in a condition to pay the court-fee and that is why, they sent these applications to the Land Acquisition Officer with deficit court-fee. Alongwith these applications they filed separate petition in each petition for granting them time to pay the deficit court-fee. No order was passed after the receipt of the applications immediately and thereafter, Respondent No. 2 who is the Special Land Acquisition Officer concerned suddenly rejected these applications for reference on the ground that they cannot be taken up because the Petitioners had not paid the deficit court-fee. On 17-11-1982 the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed orders that these petitions for reference were rejected for want of proper court-fee and earlier he rejected all four applications for time to pay deficit court-fee. Feeling aggrieved by these orders, these Petitioners have filed these revision applications in view of Section 18 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act.

(3.) Shri U. B. Bindwade, appearing for the Petitioners, urged before me that the orders of rejection were passed behind their back and without giving them any opportunity whatsoever to give their say in the matter or to pay deficit court-fee in the matter. Shri S. G. Deshmukh appearing on behalf of the Respondents in all these four revision applications placed reliance upon a Division Bench Ruling of this Court in Prabhakar Vasudev Gadgil and others etc. v. P. Y. Deshpande, Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, AIR 1983 Bombay 342. Shri S G. Deshmukh relied upon this ruling in order to show that the proceedings before the Land Aquisition Officer are not court-proceedings and the Collector discharging duties under the Land Acquisition Act is not a court. It will be seen from this ruling that these observations are made in a limited sense. The exact words of the Division Bench are as follows : -