Quashed

Shri. Dhondiba Ambadas Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Nov 2016WP/5118/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Civil Jurisdiction, quashed an order rejecting a petitioner's application for re-determination of land compensation under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court held that a prior dismissal for non-payment of court fee did not constitute an effective application, and hence barred by section 28A, revitalized the right to seek fresh re-determination.

What did the court decide?

The authority shall redetermine the amount of compensation in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

Shri. Dhondiba Ambadas Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

vina k. sr.41.wp.5118.2016.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.5118 OF 2016

¶4

Shri. Dhondiba Ambadas Shinde … Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents

¶5

Mr. Tejas D. Deshmukh a/w Mr. Samrat K. Shinde for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Mali, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State.

¶6

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.

¶7

DATE : 29 th NOVEMBER, 2016.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

Heard the parties through their counsel.

¶10

Feeling aggrieved by order dated 11 March, 2014 Exh. E whereby the petitioner's application for re-determination of the amount of compensation filed under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been rejected, the petitioner has filed this petition under section 227 of the Constitution of India. In the impugned order, the reason assigned for rejection of the petitioner's aforesaid application under section 28A of the Act, is that the petitioner's earlier application filed under section 18 has been rejected.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's earlier application was rejected vide order dated 13 June, 2006 i.e. at Exh.B, not on merit but for none payment of Court fee. In the circumstance, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of

¶12

vina k. sr.41.wp.5118.2016.doc

¶13

the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Hansoli Chand Das and Others (2002) 7 SCC 273, the impugned order is not sustainable.

¶14

Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned order as also earlier rejection order, we find that the petitioner's application was earlier rejected on the ground of non payment of requisite Court fee, and was not that the application was entertained and decided on merits. In the circumstances, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and another Vs. Hansoli Chand Das and Others (supra), the rejection of the petitioner's application cannot be ground which will come in the way of the petitioner and the authority for deciding the application filed under section 28A. The Supreme court in paragraph 9 has observed that keeping in mind that the amendment is beneficial in nature and it would cause great injustice if a literal interpretation given to the expression “had not made an application to the Collector under section 18” in section 28A of the Act. The Supreme Court has observed that the expression “did not make an application”, would mean “did not make an effective application which had been entertained by making a reference”.

¶15

In these circumstances, we are of the view, the impugned order cannot be sustained and as such hereby quashed. As a result we are granting relief in terms of prayer clause (b). The authority shall redetermine the amount of compensation in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶16

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

Shri. Dhondiba Ambadas Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Dhondiba Ambadas Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S S.K.Enterprises Vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 3 Ors.

The State of Maharashtra through Secretary to Government Dept. of Social Justice and Special Asst. Vs Ramakant Shantaram Malpekar and Ors.

Ratan Sitaram Pingat and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School and Education Dept and Ors.

Bibhishan Pralhad Sherkhane Vs the Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune Division, Pune and Ors.

Association of Management of Ayurvedic Medical Colleges of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kum. Azmi Fatima Ishteyaque and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Medical Edu. and Drugs Dept. and Ors.