Dasu S/O Manikrao Shingate vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr.
2001 Latest Caselaw 427 Bom

JUDGMENT

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.

1. None present for the petitioner.

2. Heard Shri K.S. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for the respondents.

3. Perused the records.

4. The petitioner challenges the order dated 28-8-2000 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Osmanabad rejecting his application filed under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

5. An award was passed in relation to the acquisition of the land of the petitioner along with that of others on 12-11-1981. The petitioner accepted the compensation under protest reserving his right to apply for enhancement of compensation; however, did not file any application under section 18 of the said Act. But a reference application, being Land Acquisition Reference No. 63 of 1984, came to be filed by one of the aggrieved parties, namely, Jalinder Satwaji Shinge, against the said award and the same was allowed by the Court by order dated 21-9-1988 and the compensation was enhanced to the tune of Rs. 6000/- per acre. On having learnt about enhancement of compensation in L.A.R. No. 63 of 1984, the petitioner preferred an application under section 28-A of the said Act. However, he did not submit any copy of the award of the Civil Court in L.A.R. No. 63 of 1984 along with his application and on that ground the respondent No. 2 rejected his application.

6. Section 28-A provides that where in an award under Part III of the said Act, the Court grants compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4(1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18 of the said Act, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court; provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. Sub-section (2) of section 28-A provides that the Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. Sub-section (3) of the said section provides that any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to reference under section 18.

7. In the case in hand, undisputedly, the acquired land of the petitioner was covered by the same notification under which was the land, which was the subject matter of L.A.R. No. 63 of 1984 was also acquired. In other words, the application filed by the petitioner under section 28-A was covered by the same notification relating to the land which was the subject matter of L.A.R. No. 63 of 1984. Section 28-A nowhere provides that the applicant should file the copy of the award of the Civil Court along with the applicants thereunder. Besides, sub-section (2) of section 28-A provides for necessary inquiry by the Collector on receipt of such application. Nothing prevents the party from producing necessary evidence in support of the claim for enhancement of the compensation and furnish the copy of such award of the Court. Merely because the petitioner has not annexed a copy of the Court award along with his application under section 28-A, that by itself cannot be a justification for rejection of his application. Besides, if such an award is required for perusal by the Collector or necessary for inquiry sub-section (2) of section 28-A, then certainly the Collector could call upon the applicant to produce the copy thereof. But, merely because the copy of such Court award is not filed along with the application under section 28-A, the same cannot be rejected. The provisions of law contained in section 28-A nowhere makes it compulsory for the applicant to file any such copy of Court award along with the applicant itself. In the case in hand, the record further discloses that the petitioner had submitted a copy of such award on 1st February, 1989 to the respondents, and this fact has not been controverted or denied by the respondents. In this view of the matter, it is not understood how the respondents could have rejected the application of the petitioner under section 28-A on the ground that no copy of the award of the Civil Court was annexed with the application.

8. In the circumstances, therefore, the petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 28-8-2000 passed by the respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondents to process the application under section 28-A of the Act filed by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law.

9. Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs.