Bombay High Court
Latikabai Ramrao Solanke vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 20 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:8476-DB
Writ Petition No.9607/2016
:: 1 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.9607 OF 2016
Latikabai w/o Ramrao Solanke ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & Others ... RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. M.S. Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. P.S. Patil, A.G.P. for Respopndents
.......
CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &
S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATE: 20th MARCH, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : CHIEF JUSTICE) :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the Writ
Petition is heard finally.
2. This Writ Petition takes an exception to the order
dated 3/2/2016, passed by the Deputy Collector (Land
Acquisition), Aurangabad, by which application filed by the
:: 2 ::
Petitioner under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1894) has been
dismissed.
3. In order to appreciate the grievance of the
Petitioner, relevant facts are stated in brief as under :
R, situated at village Ambegaon, Taluka Kannad, District
Aurangabad was required for the purposes of construction of
percolation tank. Therefore, notification under Section 4(1)
of the Act of 1894 was issued on 26/9/2003. The aforesaid
notification was published in two newspapers namely Daily
Sanjay Warta and Daily Lokmat Times, published from
Aurangabad on 29/10/2003 and 26/10/2003 respectively.
After publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the
Act of 1894, the Petitioner purchased the land from the
erstwhile owners by a registered Sale Deed on 16/2/2004.
The Petitioner along with the erstwhile owners of the land in
question, applied for payment of compensation. Thereupon,
the payment of compensation under the award along with
:: 3 ::
erstwhile owners of the land in question was paid to the
Petitioner.
4. Thereafter the Petitioner filed an application under
Section 28-A of the Act of 1894. The aforesaid application
has been rejected by the Collector by an order dated
3/2/2016, inter-alia on the ground that the name of the
Petitioner does not appear in the award. In the aforesaid
factual background, this Petition has been filed.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that,
the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 was
published in the village on 4/6/2004 and the Petitioner had
purchased the land vide registered Sale Deed dated
16/2/2004 i.e. prior to the publication of notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 in the village. Therefore, the
Petitioner is entitled to invoke Section 28-A of the Act of
1894.
6. On the other hand, learned A.G.P. for the
Respondents has submitted that, the Petitioner has
purchased the land after publication of notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894. Therefore, the Petitioner has
:: 4 ::
no locus to maintain the application under Section 28-A of the
Act of 1894. It is further contended that, since the Petitioner
along with erstwhile owners had submitted an application
seeking payment of compensation, therefore, the amount
determined by the Collector as compensation was paid to the
Petitioner along with erstwhile owners.
7. We have considered the rival submissions of both
sides and have perused the record. The notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 was issued on 26/9/2003.
The aforesaid notification is published in the Gazette on
16/10/2003 and was published in two daily newspapers
namely Daily Sanjay Varta and Daily Lokmat Times dated
29/10/2003 and 26/10/2003 respectively, which are
published from Aurangabad. After issuance of the notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 and its publication in
the Gazette on 16/10/2003, as well as in two daily
newspapers namely Daily Sanjay Varta and Daily Lokmat
Times dated 29/10/2003 and 26/10/2003 respectively, the
Petitioner has purchased the land on 16/2/2004. Therefore,
the name of the Petitioner was rightly not mentioned in the
award and consequently, the Petitioner has no locus to
:: 5 ::
maintain the application under Section 28-A of the Act of
1894. Needless to state that, in case the original owners
invoke Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 and ask compensation
at enhanced rate, the Petitioner shall be at liberty to avail
such remedy as may be available.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the Petition is
disposed of. Rule discharged.
(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
FMPathan/-
