ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. - (1.) HEARD . The present appeal has been taken out by the original claimant/appellant herein, against the judgment dated 29th July, 1992 passed in the Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 6/1981, whereby an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short Act) made by the appellant, was also rejected, basically on the ground that applicant had not filed any claim petitions before the Land Acquisition Officer. Effect of non -filing of basic claims
(2.) THIS issue of effect of non filing of claim petition under Section 9 Sub -clause (2) of the Act, goes to the root of the matter, in this case. While rejecting the application learned Judge has considered the Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Shantabai Shrikrishna Dhamankar and Anr. 1979 Mh. L. J. 673 relevant para is reproduced as under : 'Section 25(2) provides for a contingency where the owner has either refused to make a claim or has omitted to make a claim without sufficient reason in which case the Court cannot award any amount exceeding the amount awarded by the Collector.' 'Therefore, the observations of the learned Single Judge in the first appeal, with great respect, were not quite correct, when he observed : 'In none of these sections, does the law require the exact amount of compensation to be specified by the claimants. If the Legislature wanted the claimants to specify the amount in rupees and paise they could have very well done so; but the Legislature knew that the art and science of valuation of the land are not known to every claimant in the country. If therefore, the claimant who was wise enough not to speculate blindly about the valuation, chose to claim only reasonable or proper valuation, valuation as in the instant case, it cannot be said that there was anything in Section 9 or Section 25 which prevented the claimant from making such a claim or the Court from granting adequate compensation.''In our view, the respondents had not make a specific claim in their reply Exh. 24 in accordance with Section 9(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. That being the case, under Section 25(2) the respondents had omitted to make a claim and that took without sufficient reason. We do not find anything on the record which could be construed as sufficient reason for omitting to make a claim. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the provisions of Section 25(2) would apply and the Court could not grant any amount in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector.' The reference of Dilwarsab V. Babusab v. Special Land Acquisition Officer : AIR1974SC2333 . Relevant para from this Division Bench judgment is reproduced as under : 'Where the parties had not appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and put forward any specific amount as the compensation due they would not be entitled to any compensation higher than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.' 'In the circumstances we are not able to held that the High Court's judgment is unsupportable though we feel it would have been better if the High Court had written a more reasoned judgment. Considering also the fact that in three of these appeals at least, the parties had not appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and put forward any specific amount as the compensation due they would not have been entitled to any compensation higher than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.' The judgment in Dhanalekhshmi Weaving Works v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner AIR 1963 Ker. 298 has also cleared the issue. In the present case, apart from the findings as recorded in para 8 of the impugned order. We have gone through the record and evidence led by the parties. The appellant in his evidence A.W. 1 deposed that he might have submitted his objection before the Land Acquisition Officer, he has also admitted that he had not adduced any evidence in the said Land Acquisition Proceeding. Even though, this averments should not be shattered by the opposite side or its officer in his cross -examination. One thing is very clear that there is no statement made and or any thing to suggest the claim for the particular figure or amount. There is no positive statement made even in his examination -in -chief for the particular amount before the Land Acquisition Officer, based on which he is entitled for the enhancement compensation before the reference Court. There is nothing suggested that any particular amount was claimed in his claim petition, if any, filed on the record.
(3.) THE learned Advocate appearing for the appellant further relied on State of Maharashtra v. Janardan Yadav Gavali and Anr. 2003 (3) All M. R. 278 and contended that the reference Court cannot taken into consideration all the material relied on by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, unless it is produced and proved before the Court. He further contended that the burden lies on the State Government to prove that the parties had failed to produce on the record any objection and or any claim and relied also on State of Bihar v. Jihal and Ors., AIR 1964 Pat. 207. The basic contention is that the Collector or the concerned authorities must prove that the claimant had never appeared and or filed any objection or any claim before the Land Acquisition Officer. He relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nagar Palika, Mandsaur : AIR1981MP263 to support his case, that the claim for enhancement in absence of any claim petition filed by the claimant before the Land Acquisition Officer after service of notice under Section 9 on the parties is permissible. The facts of case in hand are different and therefore, these judgments are distinguishable. The case referred above (Shantabai), cannot be overlooked, and is binding.;