VIJAYKUMAR SANTOKCHAND ZAMBAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A notification under sub-section (4) of Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, issued by the Collector, Buldana, on 09.03.1989, was published in the Government Gazette on 11.05.1989, acquiring 0.81 R of land, out of Survey No. 12/1 at Village Ahmadpur (Nandura) for construction of bus depot, quarters of staff and other allied establishment of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. Initially, the acquisition itself was the subject matter of challenge by filing a writ petition, which was dismissed by this Court on 27.03.1992, and the Special Leave Petition was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 05.01.1996.

(2.) An award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short "the said Act") was passed in the present matter on 09.05.1991. Notice of award as required by sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the said Act was received by the claimant on 13.04.199 The claimants filed reference under Section 18 of the said Act on 16.01996, which was forwarded by the Collector on 29.08.1996 to the Civil Court, which was registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 03 of 1996, for determination of compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 57,510/- per hectare, as against the claim at the rate of Rs. 50/- per sq.ft. The Reference Court enhanced it to Rs. 1,72,839/- per hectare by its judgment and order dated 009.2003 and the total compensation payable to the claimant was Rs. 1,40,000/- for acquisition of 0.81 R of land. The claimant has preferred this appeal for further enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 50 per sq.ft.

(3.) Shri Kale, the learned AGP, invited my attention to the averments made in Para 16 of the application under Section 18 of the said Act, in which it is stated that the claimant has received notice under sub-section (2) of Section 12, of the said Act on 104.1992. He, therefore, submits that the reference sought on 16.02.1996, was beyond the period of six weeks as is stipulated in clauses (a) and (b) in the proviso below sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the said Act. According to him, the Reference Court ought to have dismissed the reference as barred by time.