Bombay High Court
Pandurang Ganpat Kharde (Dead) ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ... on 13 July, 2023
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Vrushali V. Joshi
25-WP-4333-23 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.4333 OF 2023
1. Pandurang Ganpat Kharde (Dead)
Through his legal heir
Shivhari Pandurang Kharde
Aged about 45 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
2. Karbhari Ananda Kharde (Dead)
Through his legal heir
Dattu Karbhari Kharde
Aged about 42 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
3. Bhaskar Waman Kharde
Aged about 43 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
All R/o Garkhed, Tq. Deulgaon Raja
District - Buldhana ... Petitioners
-vs-
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,
District - Buldhana ... Respondents
Shri R. N. Ghuge, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri A. A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : JULY 13, 2023
Oral Judgment : (Per : A. S. Chandurkar, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned
25-WP-4333-23 2/3
counsel for the parties.
The agricultural lands of the petitioners were acquired for the
Khadakpurna Project pursuant to the LAC No.26/1990-1991. In reference
arising out of Darkhast No.09/2002 an award dated 30/08/2013 came to be
passed. The petitioners sought benefit of enhanced compensation by making
an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
short, the said Act). Those applications were made on 25/02/2014 and the
same have been rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground of
delay.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in
Civil Appeal No.17323/2017 ( Karam Chand (Dead) By LRs and anr. vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.) by order dated 27/10/2017 the
Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to condone the delay in seeking the
determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the said Act subject to
declining the benefit of interest for the period of delay. It is thus urged that
similar course can be followed by denying the benefit of interest for the
period of about three months in the present case. The learned counsel for
the petitioners also referred to the decision in Writ Petition No.5836/2017
(Mohd. Shakir Mohd. Jafar vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.) decided on
13/11/2019 wherein after referring to the aforesaid decision in Karam
Chand (supra), liberty was granted to the claimant to seek condonation of
delay by moving an application under Section 28-A of the said Act.
25-WP-4333-23 3/3
3. Though the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondents supported the impugned order, we find that the course followed
in Karam Chand (supra) can be adopted in the present case by permitting
the petitioner to move an application for condonation of delay. Such course
was followed in Mohd. Shakir Mohd. Jafar (supra).
4. Hence for aforesaid reasons, the following order is passed :
(i) The petitioners shall be at liberty to file an application for
condonation of delay and the Competent Authority shall pass
appropriate order on the same in accordance with law after hearing
the petitioners.
(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the respondent No.2-Special
Land Acquisition Officer on 27/07/2023 with appropriate
application and after hearing the petitioners, the application shall
be decided in accordance with law within a period of three months
thereafter.
(iii) In case the delay is condoned, the petitioners would not be entitled
for interest for the period of delay from 01/12/2013 to
25/02/2014. Needless to state that if the delay is not condoned,
the petitioners are at liberty to have legal recourse in that regard.
Rule is disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
(Mrs Vrushali V. Joshi, J.) (A. S. Chandurkar, J.)
Asmita
