Bombay High Court
Celestina Rosario & Others vs Mrs. Mariquinha F.D. Rosario & Others on 30 April, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(3)BOMCR889
Author: R.K. Batta
Bench: R.K. Batta
ORDER R.K. Batta, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties heard forthwith. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.
2. Land Acquisition proceedings under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be instituted in the year 1987 and written statement was filed by the parties including the petitioners in the year 1987 itself. The recording of evidence in the matter was completed in the year 1993 and from then onwards the matter is pending for judgment. On 4-7-96 the petitioners sought leave to file additional written statement incorporating certain facts relating to the Gift Deed dated 20th August, 1917 whereby they claimed that their right to the acquired land was to the extent of half as against 1/5 the claimed in the joint written statement filed previously. This application was rejected by the learned Addl. District Judge, Margao, vide impugned order dated 30th April 1997 which is subject matter of this revision.
3. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. It is submitted by learned Advocate Shri Padiyar that the petitioners had come to know of the said Gift Deed dated 20th August, 1917 somewhere in the year 1988 and the same in fact had been produced before the Court during the course of evidence, but since there were no pleadings in relation to the said Gift Deed, it was necessary to file additional written statement and, in the circumstances, the introduction of the facts through the additional written statement was a mere formality since the Gift Deed had already been produced by the petitioners in evidence. There is no doubt that the application in question, which was rejected was filed after about 8 years of the production of the Gift Deed, yet in the facts and circumstance of this case, only on the ground of belated application, especially when the Gift Deed had been produced in evidence in the year 1988, the application should not have been rejected though the Court could have awarded compensatory costs in the matter. What weighed.in the mind of the Additional District Judge was that the party would go to square one and that some of the parties are old in the matter, but on that ground the rights of the parties cannot be trampled upon and the courts are respected for doing justice to the people.
4. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the application in question should have been allowed, but of course with compensatory costs. In case it is necessary, the parties may be given opportunity to adduce evidence in the matter in relation to the application in question.
5. For the reasons mentioned above, the revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The application (Exh. 91) in question is allowed, subject, of course, to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to respondents No. 1 to 9 who have contested this revision in this Court. The petitioners shall deposit the costs within four weeks from today and respondents No. 1 to 9 shall be at liberty to withdraw the same. The application is allowed subject to payment of costs and in case the costs are not deposited within the said period of four weeks in the trial Court, the order in question would not be operative. The parties are given liberty to adduce additional evidence, if necessary, in connection with the said application.
6. Taking into consideration that the evidence was completed about five years ago and since then the matter was pending for arguments/judgment, it is considered necessary that directions should be given to the trial Court to dispose of the matter in the light of the observations made in this order within a period of six months from the receipt of this order. It goes without saying that the Advocates for the parties shall give necessary co-operation so that the time limit fixed can be adhered to by the trial Court. Any request lor extension thereafter shall not be granted as a matter of routine. Additional written statement shall be filed on the next date of hearing fixed in the matter.
Revision stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
7. Application allowed.