VASANT BAPURAO SAKARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners property was acquired by the State under the Land Acquisition Act and compensation was offered to him by respondent No. 2, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kalamnuri. The petitioner was not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to him and so he sought for a reference to the Civil Court. While seeking for a relief from the Civil Court, a petitioner is required to pay necessary Court-fee in accordance with law. Instead of paying the necessary Court-fee, the petitioner submitted an application for time to pay the Court-fee. This petition was submitted on 6-5-1981. It appears that the matter was kept pending till 12-11-1982, and on the last mentioned date, the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an order below the application for time to pay Court-fee that the application is rejected and thereafter he held that the Court-fee was not paid and as such the request for reference was no within limitation and so he rejected the application asking for a reference to the Civil Court. These two orders are challenged in this Court by a revision under the amended section 18, sub-section (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(2.) Mr. B.B. Jadhav appearing on behalf of the State opposed the civil revision application. He was fair enough to point out section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act. It runs as follows :---

(3.) It will be seen that the application was kept pending from 6-5-1981, till 12-11-1982, when all of a sudden the application for time to pay Court-fee was rejected. It was urged by Mr. Binwade that this was rejected without any notice to the petitioner or without any information to the petitioner and consequent upon the rejection of the application, respondent No. 2 held that the application for reference was not within limitation. I am satisfied that the petitioner deserves to be granted time to pay Court-fee and any order passed against the petitioner without any notice or without the knowledge of the petitioner is bad and must be quashed. I am satisfied that both these orders of rejection of the application and of rejection of reference, dated 12-11-1982, deserve to be quashed and they are accordingly quashed. The petitioner is granted time till 30-6-1983, for payment of necessary Court-fee.