After hearing the parties, the
determination of the exact amount payable to the petitioners will have
to be made by the Reference Court. If it is found that the computation
of the amount payable incorporated in the consent awards is incorrect,
the reference Court will have to exercise powers under Section 152 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for correction of the awards.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8891 OF 2012
Tulashiram Nivarutthi Shendage vs. Taluka Legal Services Authority Malshiras & Ors
CORAM : A.S. OKA &
A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.
DATE : 23rd JANUARY, 2013.
Rule. Learned AGP appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to
5 waives service. Respondent No.1 is the Taluka Legal Services
Authority. The Respondent No.6 is the learned Judge before whom the
Reference Applications were pending. The Respondent No.1 and 6 are
formal parties and notice to them is not necessary. Considering the
controversy involved, the petitions are forthwith taken up for final
disposal.
2. The petitioners are the claimants in the Reference
Applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). Notification under Section
4(1) of the said Act was published on 7th October, 1999. The
acquisition was for construction of Ujani Canal. Awards under Section
11 of the said Act were made on 28th February, 2003. Market value
offered by the said awards was at the rate of Rs.50,000/ per Hectare.
As the petitioners did not accept the awards, at their instance,
References under Section 18 of the said Act were made. The references
were pending in the District Court. By consent of the parties, the
References were placed before the Maha Lok Adalat held on 20th
September, 2011. Settlement was arrived at before the Lok Adalat. The
undisputed terms of the settlement arrived at were recorded in the
consent awards. On page 22 of the Writ Petition No. 8891 of 2012, the
terms of the settlement which are common in all the References have
been incorporated. In our order dated 9th January, 2013 we have
recorded that prima facie there does not appear any dispute regarding
the terms compromise such as the market value fixed, the quantum of
interest payable and the payment of other statutory benefits. We have
also recorded that the only dispute is regarding the quantum of amount
payable as per the compromise arrived at between the parties. In our
order dated 9th January, 2013, we noted that either the Special Land
Acquisition Officer will have to be directed to make correct calculation
or the Reference Court will have directed to calculate the amount of
compensation payable in terms of the compromise. Today, learned AGP
states that she has not received any instructions.
3. As we have noted earlier, the compromise was made on
20th September, 2011. The terms of the compromise recorded in writing
have not been disputed by the State Government till today. Therefore,
this Court can safely proceed on the footing that there is no dispute
about the terms of the settlement which was arrived at before the Lok
Adalat and which have been incorporated in the consent award.
4. The allegation in the petitions is that after the terms and
conditions of the settlement were agreed upon, the signatures of the
petitioners were obtained on blank forms after incorporating therein the
terms of settlement and a sheet for incorporating the calculations in
terms of the settlement was kept blank. It is alleged that on that day,
before the Lok Adalat, calculation of the amount payable in terms of
compromise was made only in one reference. It is alleged that in case of
other references, the calculations were incorporated subsequently which
are completely erroneous. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner states that the only anxiety of the petitioners is that they
must get the compensation as per the agreement arrived at before the
Lok Adalat. There are very serious allegations made in the petitions
regarding the manner in which compromise was recorded in the Lok
Adalat. The learned counsel for the petitioners has taken a very fair
stand, and therefore, we are not going into the said allegations.
5. We have already referred to the agreement arrived at
between the parties which is reproduced in Marathi on page 22 of Writ
Petition No.8891 of 2012. Now the only question is of computation of
the compensation amount payable to the petitioners in terms of the
agreed terms. It will be in the interests of both the parties if the
Reference Court is directed to hear the parties and to determine the
amount of compensation payable in accordance with the agreed terms
of compromise. It will be always open for the Special Land Acquisition
Officer to submit correct calculation of the amounts payable to the
petitioners in terms of the settlement. After hearing the parties, the
determination of the exact amount payable to the petitioners will have
to be made by the Reference Court. If it is found that the computation
of the amount payable incorporated in the consent awards is incorrect,
the reference Court will have to exercise powers under Section 152 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for correction of the awards.
6. It appears to us that with a view to ensure settlement of
large number of cases before the Maha Lok Adalat, signatures of the
claimants were obtained in the manner indicated in the petitions. After
settlement before Lok Adalats, if the parties are forced to file another
proceedings, the litigants will not have faith in the institution of Lok
Adalats. Therefore, the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority will have
to issue necessary directions.
7. Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing the following
order:
ORDER
(i) We direct the parties to the references to appear before the
learned District Judge I, at Malshiras on 18th February, 2013 at
11.00 a.m.;
(ii) It will be open for the learned Judge to direct the Special Land
Acquisition Officer (the 2nd respondent herein) to submit before
him the calculations of the compensation payable to the
petitioners in terms of the settlement incorporated in the consent
awards;
(iii) After the calculations are submitted by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer and after giving an opportunity to the parties
to submit objections thereto, the learned District Judge shall
determine the amount of compensation payable to the
claimants/petitioners;
(iv) This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months
from the date on which parties appear before the learned District
Judge. The District Judge shall pass a reasoned order;
(v) If the learned District Judge finds that the calculations
incorporated in the consent awards are erroneous, the learned
District Judge shall direct that the consent awards shall be
corrected by exercising powers under sections 152 and 153 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by incorporating the correct
calculations;
(vi) The compensation amounts shall be paid to the claimants or
deposited with the District Court within a period of two months
from the date on which determination of the compensation
amounts is made by the learned District Judge;
(vii) Needless to say that, before the Lok Adalat whenever there is a
compromise between the parties in References under Section 18
of the said Act, care shall be taken to ensure that agreed
calculations of compensation amount payable as per the
compromise are incorporated in the consent Awards. If for some
reasons, after arriving at settlement, the calculations are not
ready, the references shall be kept before the next Lok Adalat.
The practice of obtaining signatures on blank forms shall not be
adopted;
(viii) Rule is made absolute on above terms;
(ix) We direct that a copy of this judgment/order shall be forwarded
to the Secretary of the Maharashtra State Legal Services
Authority to enable him to issue appropriate directions to the
concerned District and Taluka Legal Services Authorities.
(A.P. BHANGALE, J ) ( A.S. OKA, J )
Print Page
determination of the exact amount payable to the petitioners will have
to be made by the Reference Court. If it is found that the computation
of the amount payable incorporated in the consent awards is incorrect,
the reference Court will have to exercise powers under Section 152 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for correction of the awards.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8891 OF 2012
Tulashiram Nivarutthi Shendage vs. Taluka Legal Services Authority Malshiras & Ors
CORAM : A.S. OKA &
A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.
DATE : 23rd JANUARY, 2013.
Rule. Learned AGP appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to
5 waives service. Respondent No.1 is the Taluka Legal Services
Authority. The Respondent No.6 is the learned Judge before whom the
Reference Applications were pending. The Respondent No.1 and 6 are
formal parties and notice to them is not necessary. Considering the
controversy involved, the petitions are forthwith taken up for final
disposal.
2. The petitioners are the claimants in the Reference
Applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). Notification under Section
4(1) of the said Act was published on 7th October, 1999. The
acquisition was for construction of Ujani Canal. Awards under Section
11 of the said Act were made on 28th February, 2003. Market value
offered by the said awards was at the rate of Rs.50,000/ per Hectare.
As the petitioners did not accept the awards, at their instance,
References under Section 18 of the said Act were made. The references
were pending in the District Court. By consent of the parties, the
References were placed before the Maha Lok Adalat held on 20th
September, 2011. Settlement was arrived at before the Lok Adalat. The
undisputed terms of the settlement arrived at were recorded in the
consent awards. On page 22 of the Writ Petition No. 8891 of 2012, the
terms of the settlement which are common in all the References have
been incorporated. In our order dated 9th January, 2013 we have
recorded that prima facie there does not appear any dispute regarding
the terms compromise such as the market value fixed, the quantum of
interest payable and the payment of other statutory benefits. We have
also recorded that the only dispute is regarding the quantum of amount
payable as per the compromise arrived at between the parties. In our
order dated 9th January, 2013, we noted that either the Special Land
Acquisition Officer will have to be directed to make correct calculation
or the Reference Court will have directed to calculate the amount of
compensation payable in terms of the compromise. Today, learned AGP
states that she has not received any instructions.
3. As we have noted earlier, the compromise was made on
20th September, 2011. The terms of the compromise recorded in writing
have not been disputed by the State Government till today. Therefore,
this Court can safely proceed on the footing that there is no dispute
about the terms of the settlement which was arrived at before the Lok
Adalat and which have been incorporated in the consent award.
4. The allegation in the petitions is that after the terms and
conditions of the settlement were agreed upon, the signatures of the
petitioners were obtained on blank forms after incorporating therein the
terms of settlement and a sheet for incorporating the calculations in
terms of the settlement was kept blank. It is alleged that on that day,
before the Lok Adalat, calculation of the amount payable in terms of
compromise was made only in one reference. It is alleged that in case of
other references, the calculations were incorporated subsequently which
are completely erroneous. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner states that the only anxiety of the petitioners is that they
must get the compensation as per the agreement arrived at before the
Lok Adalat. There are very serious allegations made in the petitions
regarding the manner in which compromise was recorded in the Lok
Adalat. The learned counsel for the petitioners has taken a very fair
stand, and therefore, we are not going into the said allegations.
5. We have already referred to the agreement arrived at
between the parties which is reproduced in Marathi on page 22 of Writ
Petition No.8891 of 2012. Now the only question is of computation of
the compensation amount payable to the petitioners in terms of the
agreed terms. It will be in the interests of both the parties if the
Reference Court is directed to hear the parties and to determine the
amount of compensation payable in accordance with the agreed terms
of compromise. It will be always open for the Special Land Acquisition
Officer to submit correct calculation of the amounts payable to the
petitioners in terms of the settlement. After hearing the parties, the
determination of the exact amount payable to the petitioners will have
to be made by the Reference Court. If it is found that the computation
of the amount payable incorporated in the consent awards is incorrect,
the reference Court will have to exercise powers under Section 152 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for correction of the awards.
6. It appears to us that with a view to ensure settlement of
large number of cases before the Maha Lok Adalat, signatures of the
claimants were obtained in the manner indicated in the petitions. After
settlement before Lok Adalats, if the parties are forced to file another
proceedings, the litigants will not have faith in the institution of Lok
Adalats. Therefore, the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority will have
to issue necessary directions.
7. Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing the following
order:
ORDER
(i) We direct the parties to the references to appear before the
learned District Judge I, at Malshiras on 18th February, 2013 at
11.00 a.m.;
(ii) It will be open for the learned Judge to direct the Special Land
Acquisition Officer (the 2nd respondent herein) to submit before
him the calculations of the compensation payable to the
petitioners in terms of the settlement incorporated in the consent
awards;
(iii) After the calculations are submitted by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer and after giving an opportunity to the parties
to submit objections thereto, the learned District Judge shall
determine the amount of compensation payable to the
claimants/petitioners;
(iv) This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months
from the date on which parties appear before the learned District
Judge. The District Judge shall pass a reasoned order;
(v) If the learned District Judge finds that the calculations
incorporated in the consent awards are erroneous, the learned
District Judge shall direct that the consent awards shall be
corrected by exercising powers under sections 152 and 153 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by incorporating the correct
calculations;
(vi) The compensation amounts shall be paid to the claimants or
deposited with the District Court within a period of two months
from the date on which determination of the compensation
amounts is made by the learned District Judge;
(vii) Needless to say that, before the Lok Adalat whenever there is a
compromise between the parties in References under Section 18
of the said Act, care shall be taken to ensure that agreed
calculations of compensation amount payable as per the
compromise are incorporated in the consent Awards. If for some
reasons, after arriving at settlement, the calculations are not
ready, the references shall be kept before the next Lok Adalat.
The practice of obtaining signatures on blank forms shall not be
adopted;
(viii) Rule is made absolute on above terms;
(ix) We direct that a copy of this judgment/order shall be forwarded
to the Secretary of the Maharashtra State Legal Services
Authority to enable him to issue appropriate directions to the
concerned District and Taluka Legal Services Authorities.
(A.P. BHANGALE, J ) ( A.S. OKA, J )
No comments:
Post a Comment