NAMDEO DHARMAJI BAWANKULE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have filed the above appeals challenging the Judgment and order dated 10th April, 2006 passed by the second Ad hoc Additional District Judge, bhandara disposing of several land acquisition cases. When the appeals came up for admission, Mr. Mirza, the learned A. G. P. on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and Mr. Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 submitted that these appeals are not maintainable under section 54 of the land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and sought dismissal of the appeals in limine.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of the above appeals are as follows : pursuant to the notification dated 12. 4. 1981 issued by the Government of maharashtra large tracts of land were acquired for the Maharashtra Industrial Development corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") for construction of Ashok layland Factory at Gadegaon. Consequently, the notification under section 32 (2) of the maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 and final notification under section 32 (1) were published in the Government Gazette. The lands of the present appellants were included in the said notification. Thereafter, the possession of the lands of various persons including the applicants was taken. The Land Acquisition officer made an award dated 4. 5. 1989. The land Acquisition Officer did not grant statutory interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act to the appellants. The appellants sought references claiming interest on the amount of compensation. All the References were contested by respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 contended that the redetermination of compensation under section 28-A of the Act which was introduced in the year 1984 was not applicable in case of acquisition for the corporation and further that there was no provision under the Maharashtra Industrial development Act, 1961 for re-determination of the compensation. The Respondent no. 2 further alleged that the references preferred by the petitioners were barred by limitation. On the basis of respective contentions, the Reference court framed following issues. 1) Does the non-applicant no. 2 prove that present reference is not tenable 2) Does the non-applicant no. 2 further prove that decision of the Collector is final and can not be challenged under section 34 (2) of M. I. D. Act 3) Whether the reference filed by the applicant is within limitation 4) Whether the applicant proves that he is entitled to the interest as prayed for 5) What order and relief

(3.) The Reference Court answered all the issues in negative thereby holding that the reference was tenable but the reference filed by each applicant was barred by limitation. The appellants aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and order passed in different land acquisition cases have filed the present appeals.