GAJIRAM PUNDLIK GAWANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals, filed by the claimants, involve the common question of fact and law and hence all the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Few facts, that are necessary to decide the question raised in these appeals, are narrated hereinbelow:

(3.) The lands of the appellants from village Sherwal/Kanchangaon, Taluka Igatpuri, District Nashik were acquired for Minor Irrigation Project under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 4 notification was issued on 27-1-1993 and the award came to be declared on 21-10-20"05. The appellants who received the amount of compensation under protest filed the applications under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for making reference to the Civil Court. The Collector made the references. One of the main questions raised before the Reference Court was touching the bar of limitation. The Reference Court accepted the objection raised by the respondent/State that filing of the applications under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act were barred by limitation. While dealing with the question of limitation following observations are made :- "In this case, if we read the contention of the reference/Exh. 1, para 3, it makes clear that the Award was declared on 21-10-1995 but the notices under section 12(2) of the Act were issued on 29-7-1996 onwards requiring the claimants to appear on 29-7-1996 and the claimants have accepted the amounts under protest. Further, if we go through the evidence on record i.e. the Statement Exh.4, it shows that some of the claimants have received the compensation much earlier than 29-7-1996 i.e. On 5-7-1996 and some claimants have received the amounts on 30-8-1996, 31-8-1996. But the fact remains that the claimants had constructive knowledge that they should appear for accepting the amounts on 29-7-1996 and therefore, the claimants ought to have filed their claims on or before 9-9-1996, but all these claims are filed on 14-10-1996. The claimant namely Vithoba Savaliram Gawane has stated that though the notices were issued on 29-7-1996, but such notices were served on them in the month of September, 1996. Therefore, the burden lies on the claimants to prove that the notices were served on them in the month of September to show that thereafter, the claims are filed and they are within limitation. But except the bare words of the claimants, there is no iota of evidence on record to show that the notices were served on the claimants in the month of September, 1996. On the contrary, the evidence on record i.e. Statement Exh.4 is sufficient to hold that the claimants have received the amounts in the month of July 1996 and thus, looking to the legal provisions, I have come to the conclusion that all these references are time barred and therefore, the claimants are not entitled to get the compensation as prayed for and in the result, I pass the following order:"