Bombay High Court
Gangaram Bhujanga vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 4 March, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
-1-
wp2405.24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2405 OF 2024
Gangaram Bhujanga .. Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra & others .. Respondents
Mr. V. B. Deshpande, Advocate holding for Mr. S. S. Pidgewar,
Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. B. Girase, GP for the State.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
R. M. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 4th MARCH, 2024.
ORDER :
( Per R. M. Joshi, J.)
1. The Petitioner is seeking appropriate directions to the
Respondents to pass an award under Section 28A of the Land
Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) in
respect of Gat No. 149 admeasuring 33 R situated at village Karla
(Bk), Biloli, Dist. Nanded.
2. It is the case of the Petitioner that his land was acquired
along with other lands and the award was passed by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer. Some of the villagers filed reference under
wp2405.24.odt
Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the compensation. In
LAR No. 69/2011, by judgment and award dated 15 th April, 2017,
compensation granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was
enhanced. The Claimants therein being not satisfied, preferred First
Appeal Nos. 1560/2018 and 1561/2018 before this Court. This
Court, by passing judgment dated 21 st September, 2019, allowed the
Appeals and remanded the matter back for decision afresh.
Thereafter LAR No. 69/2011 was decided afresh on 30 th September,
2019 with further enhancement of compensation. The Petitioner
filed Application before the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition)
Biloli/Nanded bearing No. Spl. LAO/UPP-1/CR/208/2008 on 15 th
June, 2017 under Section 28A of the Act for re-determination,
fixation and enhancement of compensation. As far as the judgment
and award passed by the Reference Court dated 30 th September, 2019
in LAR No. 69/2011 is concerned, the Acquiring Body being
aggrieved by the said award filed Appeal bearing First Appeal St. No.
15504/2020 before this Court which is pending decision. In these
facts of the case, a direction is sought to the Collector to pass an
award under Section 28A of the Act.
wp2405.24.odt
3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that in
First Appeal St. No. 15504/2020, this Court had granted stay to the
said award initially and subsequently, the order of stay has been
vacated. It is, thus, his contention that there is no stay to the award
passed by the Reference Court and hence, there is no impediment in
passing award under Section 28A of the Act on the Application filed
by the Petitioner. It is his further submission that the Collector has
erroneously postponed the hearing of the said Application sine die till
the decision of the First Appeal.
4. The learned AGP opposed the said contentions by
referring to the provisions of Section 28A of the Act and the binding
precedents in following judgments :-
i) Bharatsingh Gulabsingh Jakhad and others vs. State of
Maharashtra and others
AIR 2018 SC (Civil) 940
ii) Babu Ram and others vs. State of U.P. and another,
1995 AIR SCW 65.
5. The facts projected by the Petitioner indicate that the
land of the Petitioner was acquired under the same acquisition
proceedings in respect of which the award has been passed by the
wp2405.24.odt
Special Land Acquisition Officer and one of such aggrieved land loser
had filed Reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of
compensation and enhancement has been granted by the Reference
Court. In such circumstances, Application under Section 28A came
to be filed. The said provision contemplates providing substantive
right to interested owner who receives compensation under Section
18 of the Act without protest for higher compensation, and remedy is
provided to him to make a written application within the prescribed
period for enhancement at par to the compensation granted to the
other aggrieved land owners.
6. The said provision is based upon the principle that once
there is determination of compensation in respect of the similarly
placed persons under same acquisition, there would be no need for
fresh adjudication of such claim. This application of award
presupposes that the claim decided in respect of the other person has
attained finality. In the instant case, admittedly, the Acquiring Body
has preferred an Appeal and the said Appeal is still pending. The
question arises as to whether during the pendency of such Appeal, it
can be said that the judgment and award passed by the Reference
Court has attained finality so as to apply the same to the Petitioner
wp2405.24.odt
by invoking provisions of Section 28A of the Act. In this regard,
fruitful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Babua Ram and others vs. Sate of U.P. and another ,
(1995) 2 SCC 689, wherein it is held that since the award of Civil
Court is carried in Appeal it becomes obligatory for the Collector to
keep the application for redetermination of compensation pending till
decision of the appeal and to redetermine the compensation on the
basis of final judgment and decree. It is, thus, clear that the order
passed by the Collector postponing the proceedings under Section
28A of the Act sine die till the decision of the Appeal by this Court, is
in accordance with the settled position of law.
7. As far as the contention of the learned Advocate for the
Petitioner about there being no impediment in deciding the
Application under Section 28A of the Act, in view of the fact that this
Court in the pending Appeal, it is pertinent to note that an order of
'stay' is granted by this Court against execution of the said award.
Such stay was conditional subject to the Appellant depositing the
amount of compensation in this Court within the stipulated time.
Since the amount has not been deposited therein, the order of stay to
the award is vacated. This does not mean that the Appellate Court
wp2405.24.odt
has confirmed the award passed by the Reference Court. We are,
therefore, not impressed with the said submission of the Petitioner.
8. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any
substance in the Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It
is, however, open for the concerned parties to request for the
expeditious disposal of the Appeal.
( R. M. JOSHI) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE)
JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
