Bombay High Court
Doma Ramaji Mendule And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra, ... on 30 March, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale
1/5 910-WP 6042.2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 6042 OF 2019
Doma Ramaji Mendhule & others vs. The State of Maharashtra & others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6043 OF 2019
Deepak Manohar Shende & others vs. The State of Maharashtra & others
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P. S. Kshirsagar, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. H. D. Dubey, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Ms. Ujjwala Patil, Advocate for respondent No.4.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE J.
DATE : 30/03/2022
In both these petitions similar orders
passed by the respondent Collector, Wardha, under
Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, have
been challenged.
2. By the said orders dated 15/06/2019 and
20/06/2019, the respondent Collector has rejected
the applications filed by the petitioners under Section
28A of the aforesaid Act for re-determination of
compensation on the basis of Award of the Court.
3. The petitioners are agriculturists and
residents of villages in District Wardha. Their land
KOLHE
2/5 910-WP 6042.2019
along with structures existing thereon were acquired
by the respondents for an irrigation project.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an
Award dated 22/03/2002 and determined the
amount of compensation payable to the claimants,
including the petitioners herein. Some of the
claimants, similarly situated like the petitioners,
preferred applications under Section 18 of the
aforesaid Act for enhancement of compensation. In
pursuance thereof, the reference Court enhanced the
compensation payable to the said claimants who had
invoked Section 18 of the said Act. By relying upon
one such judgment and Award of the reference Court
dated 22/03/2019, the petitioners filed the aforesaid
applications under Section 28A of the said Act for re-
determination of compensation in their favour.
5. By the impugned orders dated
15/06/2019 and 20/06/2019, the respondent -
Collector rejected the applications by simply noting
that since the District Government Pleader had
opined that the situation of the houses, quality of
construction and other such aspects concerning the
petitioners were materially different from the case of
the claimants wherein the reference Court had passed
its Award, the applications under Section 28A of the
KOLHE
3/5 910-WP 6042.2019
aforesaid Act could not be considered. By relying
upon the said opinion, the respondent Collector
proceeded to reject the applications by a cryptic
order.
6. Mr.Kshirsagar, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners in these writ petitions submitted
that in Section 28A of the aforesaid Act, particularly
Sub-Section (2) thereof, the Collector is mandated to
conduct an enquiry and then to re-determine the
compensation by considering the claims made by the
applicants based on the Award of the reference Court
enhancing the compensation.
7. A perusal of the Award of the reference
Court, on which the petitioners placed reliance,
shows that the amount of compensation for open plot
was enhanced from Rs.90/- per square meter to
Rs.738/- per square meter and for the constructed
area it was enhanced to Rs.2530/-per square meter.
It was submitted that on the face of it, the reference
Court erred in not enhancing compensation payable
to similarly situated claimants for open land, as well
as the constructed area.
8. Ms. Ujjwala Patil, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 submitted
KOLHE
4/5 910-WP 6042.2019
that the constructed portion of the each of the
claimants was different and that therefore, the
petitioners could not claim identical amount of
compensation as granted to the claimants in whose
case the reference Award was passed.
9. This Court is of the opinion that a perusal
of the Award of the reference Court would show that
enhancement of compensation was granted not only
for the constructed area, but also for the open land.
While the constructed area of each claimant may
differ, enhanced compensation for open plot would
clearly enure to the benefit of the petitioners. Even in
respect of the enhanced compensation for
constructed area, an enquiry was certainly
contemplated for the Collector to decide the claims of
the petitioners on merits.
10. A perusal of the impugned orders shows
that no such exercise was undertaken, although
statutorily mandated under Section 28A(2) of the
aforesaid Act, thereby showing that the Collector has
erred in passing the impugned orders. There is no
discussion beyond reference to the opinion of the
District Government Pleader. The impugned orders
passed by the Collector are cryptic and not in terms of
KOLHE
5/5 910-WP 6042.2019
the requirement under Section 28A of the aforesaid
Act.
11. In view of the above, the writ petitions
are partly allowed.
12. The orders passed by the Collector are
quashed and set aside.
13. The matters are remanded back to the
Collector for considering the applications filed by the
petitioners under Section 28A of the said Act afresh,
after giving proper opportunity to the petitioners, as
well as the respondents to place on record material
that would assist the Collector in the enquiry under
Section 28A(2) of the said Act to re-determine the
enhanced compensation, if any, payable to the
petitioners with reference to the Award passed by the
reference Court in the case of similarly situated
claimants.
14. The Collector is directed to complete the
enquiry and pass orders expeditiously and in any case
within six months from today.
JUDGE
Digitally signed byRAVIKANT
CHANDRAKANT KOLHE
Signing Date:31.03.2022
19:09
KOLHE
