Bombay High Court
Rambhau Manikrao Bhujbal And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 18 June, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:15610
(1) 17-wp-7157-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7157 OF 2025
1. Rambhau S/o. Manikrao Bhujbal,
Age: 65 years, Occu. Agril,
R/o. Bhosa, Tal. & Dist. Latur.
2. Dnynoba Manikrao Bhujbal,
Died through Legal Representative
2-1. Kalawantibai Manikrao Bhujbal,
Died through Legal Representative.
2-2. Ratan W/o. Mahadeo Bhose,
Age: 60 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. Bhosa, Tal. & Dist. Latur. ..Petitioners
(Origional Applicants)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector,
Collector Office, Latur, Dist. Latur.
2. The Sub Divisional Officer &
Land Acquisition Officer,
Latur, Dist. Latur. ..Respondents
(Origional Respondents)
...
Mr. Prasanna Shankarrao Chavan, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. D. R. Korade, AGP for Respondents-State.
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 18th JUNE, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the
parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage.
2. The present Writ Petition takes exception to order dated
10.02.2025 passed by Sub Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition
(2) 17-wp-7157-2025.odt
Officer, Latur in File No.1987/Bhusampada/CR-69, by which
application filed by petitioners under Section 28-A of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be rejected for non-removal of office
objection.
3. Mr. Chavan, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners
invites attention of this Court to office objections, which are noted
in paragraph no.3 of impugned order. He points out that there
were minor objections. The main objection was that certified copy
of award of Reference Court is not filed and necessary stamp was
not affixed. According to him, all such objections were never
communicated to petitioners, therefore, they could not remove the
same. Mr. Chavan submits that substantial right of petitioners to
receive enhanced compensation in terms of Section 28-A was
subject matter of Reference, therefore, rejection on technical
ground cannot be approved.
4. The learned AGP, however, submits that it was duty of
petitioners to attend proceeding and remove office objections. Non-
removal of office objections is good ground for dismissal of
application and no fault can be found in order of Sub Divisional
Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Latur.
5. Having considered submissions advanced, it can be observed
that petitioners filed application under Section 28-A of Land
(3) 17-wp-7157-2025.odt
Acquisition Act seeking enhanced compensation relying upon
decision in Land Acquisition Reference dated 14.12.2001 in respect
of land holders from same acquisition. The remedy under Section
28-A is provided under Land Acquisition Act to achieve parity of
compensation to all land holders, who suffered compulsory land
acquisition under common award. The impugned order shows that
Reference was filed well within time. However, there were minor
office objections. There is nothing to indicate that aforesaid office
objections were communicated to petitioners or noted by their
Advocates. In this background, interest of justice would serve, if
impugned order is quashed and set aside with liberty in favour of
petitioners to remove office objections within period of eight weeks
from date of this order. Once office objections are removed,
Competent Authority shall proceed to decide Reference in
accordance with law. However, in case of failure of petitioners to
remove office objections within stipulated period, impugned order
dated 10.02.2025 shall govern the proceeding.
6. In view of aforesaid directions, Writ Petition is allowed in
terms of prayer Clause (B).
7. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/June-2025
