SYED MIYA S/O SYED BURAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH SURPLUS LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, AURANGABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Taking into consideration the commonalities of the facts in the two matters, both these appeals can be disposed of by common Judgment and order.

(2.) The challenge in both these appeals is to the Judgment and award made by the Reference Court on 20.8.1993 rejecting the References made by the appellant on the ground that such References were not at all maintainable, since, the appellant was allegedly paid compensation in terms of the agreement arrived at between him and the State Government.

(3.) Mr.N.K.Kakade the learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this case, it was incumbent upon the State Government to produce the so called agreement on record, if indeed there was any such agreement executed between the appellant and the State Government. He submits that in this case, the appellant led evidence to show that he had not executed any agreement with the State Government and therefore, relying solely upon the unilateral statement made by the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector, it could not have been held that there was some agreement between the appellant and the State Government in the matter of payment of compensation for the acquired land. Mr.Kakade points out that on behalf of the respondent, no evidence was led to rebut the evidence of the appellant. Mr.Kakade submits that the Reference Court, has erred in placing reliance upon the xerox copy of the so called alleged agreement, which was merely handed over to the Reference Court. He submits that in this case, no responsible officer on behalf of the respondent chose to step into the witness box and to produce either original agreement or even a xerox copy of the alleged original agreement as and by way of secondary evidence. The xerox copy is simply handing in alongwith an application and the Reference Court by making cursory comparison of the signatures, has erroneously held that this was the agreement entered into between the appellant and the State Government and on such basis dismissed the reference. Mr.Kakade submits that this is the procedure unknown to law and therefore, the impugned awards are liable to be set aside and the References are liable to be allowed.