JUDGMENT : Vibha Kankanwadi, J. 1. Present appeal has been filed by the original respondent no. 02, challenging the judgment and order in Civil M.A. No. 16/2015 filed by the present respondent no. 01, which was reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, before learned Ad hoc District Judge-1, Dhule, which came to be decided on 27-11-2018. [Parties are referred as per their nomenclature before the trial Court, hereafter.] 2. Respondent no. 01 had filed that reference with the contention that house property bearing no. 237 situated at village Divi, Taluka Shindkheda, District Dhule, to the extent of 42 square meters came to be acquired vide proposal no. 26/2008. Final award was passed on 14-03-2013 and as per the said award, amount of compensation came to be fixed at Rs. 3,61,935/-. At the time of disbursement of the said amount, the co-sharers of the acquired property raised objection and, therefore, the reference was made. 3. After the reference was received, learned Ad hoc District Judge-1, Dhule, issued notices to the respondents - non-applicants. Non-applicant no. 01 appeared and filed say, that the non-applicant no. 02 has no concern with the acquired property. It was stated that the said property was never in the name of Tulshiram Muka Bagale, who was the husband of respondent no. 02. Tulshiram Muka Bagale had expired in the year 1988 and prior to death, the property was standing in his name. It is stated that the respondent no. 02, though appeared through Advocate, failed to file say within the stipulated period and, therefore, matter proceeded without her say. Thereafter again, vide application Exhibit 18, she had prayed for setting aside the said order and tried to tender say. That application was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500/- payable to respondent no. 01. However, that costs was not paid and the matter thereafter proceeded without her say. Taking into consideration the evidence, it was held that only the respondent no. 01 is entitled to get compensation and the entire amount has been directed to be given to him. This order is challenged by the present appellant. 4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S.P. Shah appearing for the appellant. Heard learned AGP Mr. A.M. Phule appearing for respondent no. 01. So also, heard learned Advocate Mr. Swapni Patil, holding for learned Advocate Ms. Nima Suryawanshi, for respondent no. 02. 5. This order is challenged by the present appellant. 4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S.P. Shah appearing for the appellant. Heard learned AGP Mr. A.M. Phule appearing for respondent no. 01. So also, heard learned Advocate Mr. Swapni Patil, holding for learned Advocate Ms. Nima Suryawanshi, for respondent no. 02. 5. Taking into consideration the rival submissions, following points arise for determination. Findings and reasons for the same are as follows:- Whether the matter deserves remand for giving opportunity to respondent no. 02? 6. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant, that the appellant is a 70 years old lady residing in rural area. She used to go to her Advocate to make enquiry regarding the matter. The Advocate kept promising her to represent her and told that the matter is in progress. Even the costs amount is stated to have been given by her to the Advocate but he did not deposit the same with the Court. She believed in the words of Advocate, but then came to know that the entire amount has been given to the respondent no. 01. She contends that the part of the property was standing in the name of her husband prior to acquisition and, therefore, she is also having right to claim compensation. 7. Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no. 02 submitted that the opportunity was given to the respondent no. 02 - original appellant but she preferred not to contest. Under such circumstance, no case is made out to remand and to give her any opportunity. 8. Along with appeal, the appellant has produced certain documents on record which shows that initially one Muka Kamaji Chambhar was the owner of the house property no. 127. It appears that it was divided into two parts. Property bearing no. 127 A, B went to Tulshiram Muka Bagul i.e. son of original owner and property bearing no. 127-C to Onkar Muka Bagul i.e. present respondent no. 02, another son of Muka. The said extract is of the year 1966-67. Thereafter, other documents i.e. extract no. 08 for subsequent years i.e. 1972-73, 1977-79, 1981-82, 1987-88, 1993-94 and 2006-07 have been produced. Definitely, at that time, it appears that the property numbers have been changed and the property is in Grampanchayat area. 02, another son of Muka. The said extract is of the year 1966-67. Thereafter, other documents i.e. extract no. 08 for subsequent years i.e. 1972-73, 1977-79, 1981-82, 1987-88, 1993-94 and 2006-07 have been produced. Definitely, at that time, it appears that the property numbers have been changed and the property is in Grampanchayat area. But till 1981-82, property numbers were same and they were standing in the name of Tulshiram and Onkar, respectively, to the extent of 300 square feet and 100 square feet, respectively. It appears from other documents, that she has also paid taxes in respect of the said house. All these documents were with the respondent no. 02 but she has not produced the same before the concerned Court. No doubt, though the matter initially proceeded without say and then that order was set aside by imposing costs, the Court had given her opportunity, yet, there is substance in her say that she believed in her Advocate who had told her that the matter is in progress and in fact, did not do anything in the matter. There is no reason to disbelieve her for the reason that she was possessing those documents with her. Further fact which cannot be disputed is that she is 70 years old lady residing in rural area and, therefore, she was dependent on the advice given by Advocate. Therefore, without making any kind of comments on the merits of the matter, the matter deserves remand in order to give an opportunity to her to put forth her case. Hence, the point is answered accordingly. 9. For the reasons recorded above, following order is passed:- (a) The appeal is partly allowed. (b) The judgment and order passed in Civil M.A. No. 16 of 2015, by learned Ad hoc District Judge-1, Dhule, dated 27-11-2018, is hereby set aside. The said application is hereby restored on the file of the learned Judge. The learned Judge is directed to give an opportunity to the present appellant (respondent no. 02 therein) to lead evidence, if advised and after giving opportunity to lead evidence to her, then liberty may be given to respondent no. 01 also, to lead any evidence and file say, if any. Thereafter, the learned Judge shall decide the matter on merits. Both the parties to appear before the learned Judge on 29th July 2019. 02 therein) to lead evidence, if advised and after giving opportunity to lead evidence to her, then liberty may be given to respondent no. 01 also, to lead any evidence and file say, if any. Thereafter, the learned Judge shall decide the matter on merits. Both the parties to appear before the learned Judge on 29th July 2019. (c) It is clarified, that in view of order passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 2050 of 2019, respondent no. 01 i.e. State was directed not to disburse 50% of the amount of compensation granted under the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 14-03-2013. That order to remain in force till final decision in Civil M.A. No. 16 of 2015 by the learned Judge.