Mainoddin Gudubhai Shaikh Since ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4867 Bom

                                                                           35.wpst.99876-20.doc

Bhogale

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                         WRIT PETITION ST. NO.99876 OF 2020

          Mainoddin Gudubhai Shaikh
          since deceased through heirs & ors.                       .. Petitioners
                vs.
          The State of Maharashtra & ors.                 .. Respondents
                                 ------------------------
          Mr. R.S. Alange for the Petitioners.
          Mrs. M.S. Bane, AGP for the State.
                                         ------------------------

                                       CORAM            : M.S.KARNIK, J.

                                       DATE             :   MARCH 17, 2021

          P.C.:-

                   Not on board. Taken on board.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard fnally with the

consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated

15.09.2020 passed by the Sub Divisional Ofcer, Solapur

rejecting the application made by the Petitioners for

redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the said Act' for short). Reading of the

impugned order would reveal that the order has been passed in

view of the opinion dated 28.07.2017 of the Assistant

35.wpst.99876-20.doc

Government Pleader, Solapur. The order has been passed only on

the basis of this opinion. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has

relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Shri

Dhondiba Sudam Sonwane since deceased through Lrs. &

Other vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. in Writ Petition

No.9666 of 2013 dated 29.11.2013 where a similar issue had

arisen in support of his case.

4. Learned AGP tried to justify the impugned order.

5. Firstly, in my opinion the S.D.O. should have conducted the

enquiry as contemplated under Section 28A of the said Act and

then proceeded to pass appropriate orders. In any case the

application could not have been rejected only based on the

opinion of the Assistant Government Pleader, Solapur. It would

be material to refer to operative portion Clause (d) of the order

passed in Shri Dhondiba Sudam Sonwane's case which reads

thus :-

(d) We direct the ofce of the Government Pleader to forward copies of this judgment and order to all Divisional Commissioners in the State; The Divisional Commissioners, in turn, shall direct that copies of this judgment and order shall be circulated to all the ofcers exercising powers of the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 through the ofce of the District Collectors."

35.wpst.99876-20.doc

6. This Court in Shri Dhondiba Sudam Sonwane's case

has clearly provided for the manner in which the application

under Section 28A of the said Act for redetermination of

compensation is to be dealt with. The impugned order therefore

calls for interference. The matter is remitted to the S.D.O.

7. The S.D.O. shall decide the application made under Section

28A of the said Act for redetermination of compensation afresh in

accordance with the provisions of law and in the light of the

observations made by this Court in Shri Dhondiba Sudam

Sonwane's case.

8. Rule is made absolute. The impugned order is set aside.

The Petitioners to appear before the Respondent No.3 on

08.04.2021 at 11.00 a.m. to enable the Respondent No.3 to

proceed further with the matter.

9. The Writ Petition is disposed of.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.)

Digitally signed by Diksha Diksha Rane Rane Date:

2021.03.17 19:16:06 +0530