Smt. Shantabai Bhagwan Gomate And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6471 Bom

                                    1                          wp4207.2023

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                     WRIT PETITION NO.4207/2023

1.   Smt. Shantabai Bhagwan Gomate,
     aged about 65 Yrs., Occ. Agriculturist,
     R/o Garkhed, Tq. Deulgaon Raja,
     Dist. Buldhana.
2.   Dwarkabai Ramrao Shingne,
     aged about 70 Yrs., Occ. Agriculturist,
     R/o Mandapgaon, Tq. Deulgaon Raja,
     Dist. Buldhana.
3.   Dnyandeo Yashwant Mante,
     aged about 55 Yrs., Occ. Agriculturist,
     R/o Garkhed, Tq. Deulgaon Raja,
     Dist. Buldhana.                                 ...     Petitioners
       - Versus -
1.   The State of Maharashtra,
     through its Secretary,
     Irrigation Department,
     Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2.   The Sub-Divisional Officer and
     Land Acquisition Officer,
     Sindkhed Raja, Tq. Sindkhed Raja,
     Dist. Buldhana.                                 ...   Respondents
                -----------------
Mr. R.N. Ghuge, Counsel for the Petitioners.
Mr. A.A. Madiwale, Assistant Government                      Pleader       for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
          ----------------

CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR & MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 7.7.2023

2 wp4207.2023

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.S. Chandurkar, J.)

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives notice for the

respondents.

2. Challenge raised is to the orders dated 10.11.2022 and

8.2.2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer / Land Acquisition

Officer, Sindkhed Raja rejecting the applications for condonation

of delay in filing proceedings under Section 28A of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "Act of 1894").

3. The lands of the petitioners came to be acquired

pursuant to the award passed under Section 11 of the Act of 1894.

In terms of the order passed in Land Acquisition Case

Nos.9/2002 and 215/2022 the petitioners preferred applications

under Section 28A of the Act of 1894 seeking re-determination

of the amount of compensation. Initially the said applications

came to be rejected, after which the petitioners approached this

3 wp4207.2023

Court and the proceedings were remanded for fresh

consideration. Thereafter since the Sub-Divisional Officer found

that the applications were filed beyond the period of limitation,

he refused to entertain the said applications. The petitioners

again approached this Court and while remanding the

proceedings, the petitioners were permitted to file fresh

applications seeking condonation of delay. Pursuant thereto this

exercise was undertaken and by the impugned orders the Sub-

Divisional Officer has again rejected the said applications.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon

the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal

No.17323/2017 (Karam Chand [dead] by L.Rs. and another V/s.

State of Himachal Pradesh & another) decided on 27.10.2017 and

submitted that the delay being of 175 days, the same could be

condoned subject to depriving the petitioners of the benefit of

interest for the period of delay. The learned counsel also seeks to

rely upon the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Petition

No.5836/2017 (Mohd. Shakir Mohd. Jafar V/s. State of

4 wp4207.2023

Maharashtra and another) decided on 13.11.2019. It is, thus,

submitted that an opportunity be granted to the petitioners to

claim the enhanced compensation under Section 28A of the Act

of 1894.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader opposes

the aforesaid prayer by submitting that after considering the

grounds raised by the petitioners the delay was not condoned

hence no interference in the impugned orders is called for.

6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we

find that in the applications for condonation of delay the

petitioners failed to give sufficient reason for having the delay

condoned. They also failed to bring to the notice of the

Sub-Divisional Officer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Karam Chand (supra). We find that the provisions of

Section 28A are beneficial in nature and following the course as

indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karam Chand (supra)

an opportunity deserves to be given to the petitioners to seek

condonation of delay.

5 wp4207.2023

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to file an

additional application indicating the cause of delay and also by

referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to

hereinabove. It would be open for the Sub-Divisional Officer to

deprive the petitioners of the amount of interest for the period of

delay if the same is condoned. Accordingly, the following order

is passed :-

The orders dated 10.11.2022 and 8.2.2023 are set

aside. The petitioners are at liberty to file additional application

before the Sub-Divisional Officer indicating the reasons for delay.

After considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Karam Chand (supra) the Sub-Divisional Officer shall pass orders

in that regard. The entire exercise be completed within three

months from today. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

No costs.

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

Tambaskar.