Quashed

Shri. Tukaram Kerba Ohol and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Dec 2016WP/5663/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court quashed an order rejecting a petitioners application for redetermination of land acquisition compensation. Relying on a Supreme Court precedent, the court held that a prior rejection for non-payment of court fee does not bar a fresh filing if the earlier application was not entertained on merits.

What did the court decide?

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

Shri. Tukaram Kerba Ohol and Ors. Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

28-wp-5663-2016.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATTE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.5663 OF 2016

¶4

Tukaram Kerba Ohol and Others ...Petitioners vs.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra and Others

¶6

...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Samrat Shinde i/b. Mr. T.D. Deshmukh, for the Petitioner Ms. R.M. Shinde, AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 09, 2016

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

. Heard the parties through their counsel.

¶11

Feeling aggrieved by order dated 11 March, 2014 Exh. E

¶12

whereby the petitioner's application for redetermination 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.

1/3

Vishal Parekar

28-wp-5663-2016.doc

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

¶17

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 the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of

¶18

“Union of India and another Vs. Hansoli Devi & Others (2002) 7 SCC 273” , the impugned order is not sustainable.

¶19

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

¶20

Court in the case of “Union of India and another Vs. Hansoli Devi

¶21

& 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

¶22

the amendment is beneficial in nature and it would cause great

2/3

Vishal Parekar

28-wp-5663-2016.doc

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”.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

3/3

¶30

Vishal Parekar

Shri. Tukaram Kerba Ohol and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Tukaram Kerba Ohol and Ors. 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

Gauri Hemantkumar Gharat, through Hemantkumar Gajanan Gharat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Society of St. Francis Xavier, Pilar, India and Ors. Vs 1. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mumbai Auto Rickshaworkmens Union, through President Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Transport and Ors.

Shri. Tukaram Kerba Ohol and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Dattu Keshav Khade (Decd) through Lr, Bapu Dattu Khade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sai Education Society through Its Secretary Adv. Amruta Dyaneshwar Gurav Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary of School Edu. and Sports Dept.