SHIVRAM RAMAJI ATKARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lac No.182/2003 filed by the appellant before Ad-hoc District Judge-5 at Amravati came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 07/09/2007 on two counts. Firstly that the Reference Court barred by limitation and secondly on merits holding that the appellant has failed to adduce sufficient evidence on record to show that Land Acquisition Officer has not awarded fair amount of compensation for the acquisition of land and orange trees. Hence he has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Brief facts of the appeal are to the effect that appellant is owner and occupant of land bearing field Survey No.217 admeasuring 2.40H situate at village Dhanodi. It is the case of the appellant that there is a orchard of 300 orange fruit bearing trees and a pacca built up well. The field was irrigated filed. Out of the said piece of land, the respondents have acquired middle strip of 0.58 hectare land alongwith 140 orange fruit bearing tees for the purpose of Chandrabhaga Distribution Canal. As per the grievance of the appellant though total 140 orange trees were standing on the acquired piece of land, valuation agency counted only 122 orange fruit bearing trees and dropped 18 trees. Moreover, due to acquisition of this middle strip of land from the field of the appellant, he could not irrigate the remaining 105 orange fruit bearing trees as the well of the instant field situated in eastern side of field and all these 105 orange fruit bearing trees remained on the western side. Respondent No.3 has not granted permission to put the pipe line on the canal lift water from eastern to western side. Thus 105 orange fruit bearing trees dried and appellant sustained loss for the same. Therefore he claimed compensation towards that amount also. However LAO totally granted him the compensation of Rs.2,21,722/- only holding the market price of the fruits from the said trees @ Rs.300/- for one thousand fruits though the actual market price was Rs.500/- per thousand fruits. The LAO has also not calculated the correct market value of the acquired land. The amount of compensation awarded on the said count was also inadequate. Similarly no amount of compensation was granted to the appellant for the loss of 105 orange fruit bearing trees. Thus appellant claimed total compensation of Rs.15,28,000/- but restricted claim up to Rs.10,00,000/- along with solatium, interest, costs etc.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2. None present for respondent No.3. On the basis of submissions advanced by them and on perusal of the impugned judgment of the Reference Court and the evidence adduced before it, I am not more than satisfied that the Reference Court has committed error on both the factual and legal aspects. It is pertinent to note that Reference Court has dismissed the claim of the petitioner on account that it is barred by limitation and while arriving at this finding, Reference Court has implicitly held that reference was necessary to be filed within six weeks (42 days) from the date of award and as the award in this case was passed on 16/09/2001 and the reference was filed on 28/03/2002, the Reference Court held that it was barred by limitation. However while arriving at this finding, learned Reference Judge has clearly overlooked and neglected the provisions of Section12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act according to which only after receipt of notice and that too accompanied with the copy of award so that the claimant could exercise his right of appeal effectively, the period of limitation can start. In the recent case it is pointed out that as per the averments in the petition, notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act was received by the appellant on 22/02/2002 and the reference is filed on 19/03/2010. This fact was not at all controverted and in such situation it can hardly be called that the reference was filed beyond limitation. Therefore the relevant finding of the Reference Court on this issue needs to be set aside and it has to be held that the reference before the Reference Court was within limitation.