IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 10 WRIT PETITION NO. 9508 OF 2024 BABASAHEB RAMDAS ZAREKAR DIED THROUGH LRS PRABHAWATI BABASAHEB ZAREKAR AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER Mr. K. B. Jadhav, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. D. B. Bhange, AGP for the respondent/State CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 3rd FEBRUARY, 2025 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for both sides by consent finally at the stage of admission. 2. This is one of such petitions frequently appearing before this Court. This Court therefore is compelled to observe that there is a modus operandi of the claimants in land acquisition reference to allow dismissal of the reference without leading evidence or non appearance. It is therefore the petition is filed for restoration thereof. The whole ideas seems to be to gain/earn statutory interest which is at the rate of 15% per annum. Needless to say that for last number of years on no investment interest at the rate of 15% could be received by any person. The interest amount though paid by government is actually from public exchequer and the taxes payable by the honest citizen of this country. 10.wp9508.24.odt 1 of 3 2025:BHC-AUG:3174 Thus, time has come to take a strict view in such matters. Unless such view is taken the disgruntle litigants would not get discouraged from adopting such tactics. 3. Herein this case the reference is filed in the year 1994 and issues were framed in the year 1996. Therefore it was duty of the petitioners/original claimants to lead evidence to substantiate his case. No evidence was led up to 13/06/2003 i.e. the date on which the reference was rejected. 4. Petitioners filed the petition by contending that this is a case of compulsory acquisition of land and that they are entitled for adequate compensation. He, however does not give any reason muchless satisfactory reason for not recording evidence before the reference Court since 1996. 5. Since this is a case of compulsory acquisition and that the claimant has a right to receive fair compensation, the petitioners deserves to be given an opportunity to substantiate his claim before Reference Court. The petitioners however cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong. There is no reason that other citizen should be made to borne the wrongful gains sought to be made by the petitioners. In such circumstances, though the petition deserves to be 10.wp9508.24.odt 2 of 3 allowed and the order impugned needs to be set aside, the petitioners are required to be denied any interest on the amount of compensation determined by Reference Court. from 1996 till the restoration of the reference. Hence, the order. ORDER (i) Petition stands allowed. (ii) If the petitioners succeed in getting order of the compensation from Reference Court they would not be entitled for any interest thereon from 1996 till restoration of the reference. (iii) Since Reference is of year 1994, Court is directed to dispose of the reference within a period of six months. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 10.wp9508.24.odt 3 of 3