RAMCHANDRA MAROTI BIDKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed on behalf of the appellant (original claimant) seeking permission to transpose original non-applicant No.3 before the Reference Court as an appellant. It is relevant that the said original non-applicant No.3 was the uncle of the appellant and he is now represented by his legal representatives.

(2.) In the present case, land belonging to the appellant and the respondent No.3 was acquired by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The land admeasuring 1.63 HR from 3.04 HR located in Survey Nos.623/1, 623/2 and 623/3 in Mouza Salod, Tahsil and District Wardha was acquired for construction of Deoli Branch Canal. It is also undisputed that out of 1.63 HR land, 1.43 HR land was owned by the appellant and balance 0.20 HR land was owned by the respondent No.3. Award was passed on 31/07/2010 by the Land Acquisition Officer.

(3.) In pursuance of the award, the Land Acquisition Officer had prepared a consolidated cheque for amount of compensation of Rs.5,39,406/-. This amount pertained to entire 1.63 HR land acquired in the present case and the amount of compensation was not separately granted to the appellant and the respondent No.3 for their respective areas of land i.e. 1.43 HR and 0.20 HR respectively. In this situation, as the cheque for the amount of compensation was a consolidated cheque, a dispute appears to have arisen between the appellant and the respondent No.3, who were relatives and ultimately a compromise was executed between them, wherein it was agreed by the respondent No.3 that the appellant would collect the cheque towards the consolidated amount of compensation and that both of them would cooperate each other for further action in that regard. This compromise was executed between the parties and accordingly the consolidated cheque was received by the appellant under protest. Thereafter, the appellant filed application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1894") seeking enhancement of compensation. In this application, the said facts regarding consolidated cheque being received by the appellant for himself and the respondent No.3 were placed on record and it was specifically stated that the reference application was being filed and the respondent No.3 was arrayed as non-applicant No.3 in the said application.