Bombay High Court
Shrikant Raghunath @ Kisan Alat vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 4 January, 2022
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, S. M. Modak
1. WP 1846 of 2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1846 OF 2019
Shrikant Raghunath @ Kisan Alat ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra through
Its District Collector and Ors. ...Respondents
*****
Mr. Sujeet R. Bugade - Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. B. Kalel - AGP for the Respondent No. 1 and 2.
*****
CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA AND
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 04th JANUARY, 2022
P. C. :-
1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks liberty to delete
Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 on the ground that no reliefs are sought
against the said Respondents. Leave to amend is granted. The
amendment to be carried out within two weeks from today.
2. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. By consent of parties, petition is heard
finally.
3. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioner has prayed for writ of certiorari for quashing
Digitally signed
SEEMA by SEEMA
KSHITIJ
KSHITIJ YELKAR
1/5
Date:
YELKAR 2022.01.05
18:17:33 +0530
Seema
1. WP 1846 of 2019.doc
and setting aside the impugned order dated 07th December, 2012
passed by the Respondent No. 2 on the application filed by the
Petitioner and the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 under Section 28A of the
Land Acquisition Act.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner was not issued
any notice by the Respondent No. 2 before deciding the said
application filed by the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 5 and 6
under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act.
5. Learned counsel invited our attention to the impugned order
annexed at Exh. D to the petition and submitted that no such
documents are required to be produced as referred in the impugned
order dated 07th December, 2012.
6. In support of his submission the learned counsel placed
reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court delivered on
29/11/2013 in the Writ Petition No. 9666 of 2013 filed by the S hri
Dhondiba Sudam Sonawane Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .
7. The learned AGP made an attempt to justify the order passed
by the Respondent No. 2 on the ground that the Petitioner had not
disclosed the current address of the Petitioner to the Respondent No.
Seema 2/5
1. WP 1846 of 2019.doc
2.
8. The perusal of the averments made in the petition clearly
indicates that the address of the Petitioner was changed and was not
residing at the address at which the Respondent No. 2 had allegedly
sent the notice.
9. The impugned order is violation of principal of natural justice.
Be that as it may in case of Shri Dhondiba Sudam Sonwane (Supra)
this Court held that most of the requisitions set out in the impugned
communications are completely contrary to the requirements of
Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. Except for the certified copy
of the award of the Civil Court, no other documents were required to
be produced alongwith an application under sub-section (1) of
Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. The statement that a
reference under Section 18 of the said Act has not been applied for
by the Applicant must be normally incorporated in the application
itself. If such statement is not made in the application, a separate
affidavit in that behalf can be filed. This Court accordingly held that
calling upon the claimants to furnish such details was completely
illegal as such requisitions will completely defeat the very object of
incorporating Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act.
Seema 3/5
1. WP 1846 of 2019.doc
10. The Principles laid down by this Court in case of Shri
Dhondiba Sudam Sonwane (Supra) apply to this case. We are
respectfully bound by the said judgment. We do not propose to take
any different view in this matter.
11. In our view the impugned order dated 07/12/2012 is contrary
to the Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act and the principles laid
down by this Court in case of Shri Dhondiba Sudam Sonwane
(Supra), and thus deserves to be set aside.
12. We accordingly passed following order:-
ORDER
(a) The impugned order dated 07/12/2012 passed by
the Respondent No. 2 is quashed and set aside.
(b) The application made by the Petitioner and
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 bearing No. 7 of 2009 filed
under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act are
restored to file and to be disposed of on its own merits.
(c) Respondent No. 2 to decide the said application
in accordance with principles laid down by this Court in
case of Shri Dhondiba Sudam Sonwane (Supra).
(d) If the Petitioner has not produced certified copy
of the award, the same shall be produced within two
weeks from today.
(e) The Petitioner is directed to furnish current
Seema 4/5
1. WP 1846 of 2019.doc
address of the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 2 within
one week from today for the purposes of
communication.
(f) The Respondent No. 2 shall decide the matter
afresh and in accordance with law within eight weeks
from the date of communication of this order.
(g) The Respondent No. 2 shall give fresh notice on
Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
(h) The Petitioner is directed to remain present
before Respondent No. 2 on 12/01/2022 at 11 a.m.
without fail. If the date assigned by this Court is not
convenient to the Respondent No. 2, the convenient
date shall be informed to the Petitioner with 48 hours
advance notice before the date of hearing proposed by
the Respondent No. 2.
(i) The learned AGP agrees to convey this order to
the Respondent No. 2 for information and compliance.
(j) Writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid term.
13. Rule is made absolute. Accordingly, no order as to costs..
14. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
[S. M. MODAK, J.] [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]
Seema 5/5
