DINKAR PRABHAKARIINDE Vs. COLLECTOR OF -SPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the judgment of the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Solapur, dated 21.10.2005 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 48 of 1999 filed by the appellant. The appellant is one of the four brothers owning land under Gat No. 369/ 1 to 5. The appellant has been in possession of the land under Gat No. 369 / 2 (Part) admeasuring 1 Hectare and 89 Ares. A part of these lands has been acquired by the respondents for construction of a canal. Each of the four brothers is entitled to 16 Acres. A compensation at the rate of Rs. 7, /- has been received by each of the brothers, excluding solatium. Only the appellant has filed the Reference challenging the extent of compensation.

(2.) A Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued on 9.5.1996 for acquisition of the suit premises. An Award has been passed by the SLAO in Reference No. 11 of .1996 on 6.2.1999. A notice of this Award is stated to have been sent by the respondents and is stated to have been received by the appellant on or before 8.6.1999. The notice is stated to have been sent by the appellant for himself and on be- half of his other brothers also. A report of the Talathi to that end has been made on 8.6.1999. It is, therefore, contended that the notice has been received on or prior to 8.6.1999. The receipt of the notice is denied. The signature showing the receipt of the notice of the appellant on behalf of himself and his brothers is also denied. The appellant has received his cheque for the compensation amount and it is deposited in his bank on 28.7.1999. The reference has been filed on 4.8.1999.

(3.) The reference has been challenged on the ground that it is barred by the Law of Limitation as also on merits upon the claim made by the appellant. The appellant claims an additional amount of Rs. 20,000 / - for acquisition of his land, admeasuring 16 Ares. The appellant contends that the receipt of the notice is not shown, but the deposit of his cheque, which was on 28.7.1999, shows the receipt of the notice at around that time. He, therefore, contends that the reference filed on 4.8.1999 is well within time.