Quashed

Laxman Narayan Salekar (J.F.M.) and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Feb 2020WP/4916/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed writ petition challenging Land Acquisition Officer's rejection of Section 28A(3) application. Court held petitioners are entitled to seek reference for enhanced compensation via Civil Court as pending appeals of other landowners may revise the quantum, aligning with V. Ramakrishna Rao principles. Application remanded to Special Land Acquisition Officer.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders by LAO set aside; matter remanded to Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer application to Court; Reference Court to act based on pending judgments in First Appeals Nos. 1579 of 201

Laxman Narayan Salekar (J.F.M.) and Ors. Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

Megha 21_wp_4916_2018.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.4916 OF 2018

¶4

Laxman Narayan Salekar and Ors.…Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors....Respondents

¶5

Mr. Gaurav Potnis i/b. Ms Pallavi Potnis for the Petitioners.
Mr. R.P. Kadam, AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶6

CORAM :A.A. SAYED AND SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

¶7

DATED: 07^th FEBRUARY, 2020.

¶8

P.C.:-

¶9

.The Petitioners have sought leave to file a single Writ

¶10

Petition to challenge the order passed by the LAO. Leave is granted
subject to the Petitioners paying the requisite court fees.

¶11

2.The Petitioners have approached this Court under Article

¶12

226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated
18/06/2016 by which Respondent No.2- Land Acquisition Officer has
dismissed the application filed by the Petitioners under Section 28A (3)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Petitioners have also prayed for
directions to Respondent No.2 to refer the dispute to the Court under

¶13

Megha

¶14

1/8

¶15

Megha 21_wp_4916_2018.doc

¶16

Section 28 A(3) of the Act.

¶17

3.The facts in brief are that the land of the Petitioners was
acquired for the purpose of ‘Neera Deoghar Irrigation Dam Project’ by
virtue of notification dated 21/07/1994 under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer made an Award
No.LAQ17/SR/9/93 dated 4/8/1997 under Section 11 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and offered compensation of Rs.30,000/- to
52,000/- per hectare. The Petitioners accepted the compensation
offered by the Collector.

¶18

4. The Petitioners claim that they did not file application under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the compensation on account of their illiteracy. The other land owners had filed applications under Section 18 claiming enhanced compensation @ Rs.2,55,000/- per hectare. These applications were referred to the District Court as land References 199 of 1998 and 206 of 1998. The Reference Court answered these references by judgment and award dated 27/3/2006 holding the fair market value of land at Rs.1,14,000/- per hectare with other statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Reference Megha 2/8

¶19

Megha 21_wp_4916_2018.doc

¶20

Court, these land owners challenged the judgment and award of the
Reference Court in First Appeal Nos. 1579 of 2011 and 328 of 2008. It
is stated that the said Appeals have been admitted and are pending
before this Court.

¶21

5. The Petitioners on acquiring knowledge of the judgment and award of the Reference Court filed an application under Section 28 A of the Land Acquisition Act before the Respondent No.2 for redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Reference Court. The Respondent No.2 by award No.LAO /17/SR/9/93 dated 31/12/1992 passed under Section 28A(1) redetermined the amount of compensation to Rs.1,14,000/- per hectare. The Petitioners, on acquiring knowledge of the said award obtained a copy thereof and being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by Respondent No.2 made an application for Reference under Section 28A(3) of the Act seeking enhanced compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- per hectare. Respondent No.2 has rejected the said Reference mainly on the ground that the compensation has been redetermined on the basis of the judgment and award of the Reference Court and hence the Petitioners are not entitled to seek enhanced compensation @ Rs. 2,55,000/- per hectare. Being Megha 3/8

¶22

Megha 21_wp_4916_2018.doc

¶23

aggrieved by this order the Petitioners have invoked the writ
jurisdiction of this Court.

¶24

6.We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and

¶25

the learned AGP for the Respondent-State. Section 28(A) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 reads as follows:-

¶26

“28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation
on the basis of the award of the Court.-(1) Where in an
award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant
any amount of compensation in excess of the amount
awarded by the Collector under section 11, the persons
interested in all the other land covered by the same
notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who
are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may,
notwithstanding that they had not made an application
to the Collector under section 18, by written application
to the Collector within three months from the date of
the award of the Court require that the amount of
compensation payable to them may be re-determined
on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by
the Court:

¶27

Provided that in computing the period of three months
within which an application to the Collector shall be
made under this sub-section, the day on which the
award was pronounced and the time requisite for
obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.

¶28

(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application
under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving
notice to all the persons interested and giving them a
reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an
award determining the amount of compensation
payable to the applicants.

¶29

Megha

¶30

4/8

¶31

Megha 21_wp_4916_2018.doc

¶32

(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under
sub-section (2) may, by written application to the
Collector, require that the matter be referred by the
Collector for the determination of the Court and the
provisions of section 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be,
apply to such reference as they apply to a reference
under section 18.”

¶33

7.Section 28A has been enacted to give benefit to those, who

¶34

could not seek Reference for enhancement either due to illiteracy,
poverty or other reasons. Scope of Section 28A has been considered by
the Apex Court inV.Ramakrishna Rao vs Singareni Collieries Company
[2010] 10 SCC 650. It has been held that this Section gives a chance

¶35

to the land owners, who may not have applied under Section 18 for
determination of market value by the Court to seek re-determination of
the amount of compensation, if similarly situated land owner succeeds
in persuading the Reference Court to fix higher market value of the
acquired land. Therefore Section 28A has to be interpreted in a
manner which would advance the policy of legislation to give an
opportunity to the land owner, who may have due to variety of reasons
not been able to move the Collector for making reference under
Section 18 of the Act to get higher compensation, if market value is
revised by the Reference Court at the instance of other land owners,
whose land is acquired under the same notification. The Apex Court

¶36

Megha

¶37

5/8

¶38

Megha 21_wp_4916_2018.doc

¶39

has reiterated that Section 28A is in the nature of beneficent provision
intended to remove inequality and to give relief to the inarticulate and
poor land owners, who are not able to take advantage of the right of
reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The Apex
Court has observed that such a provision should be interpreted in a
manner which advances the policy of legislation. Whilst interpreting
scope of Sub section 3 of Section 28A the Apex Court has observed
thus :-

¶40

“11. If sub-section (3) of Section 28A is interpreted
keeping in view the object sought to be achieved by
enacting the provision for removing inequality in the
matter of payment of compensation, it must be held that
a person who is not satisfied with an award made under
Section 28A (2) can make an application to the
Collector under Section 28A(3) for making a reference
to the Court as defined in Section 3(d) of the Act and
this right cannot be frustrated merely because as a result
of re-determination made under Section 28A (2) read
with Section 28A (1) the applicant becomes entitled to
receive compensation at par with other land owners.
There is nothing in the plain language of Section 28A
(3) from which it can be inferred that a person who has
not accepted the award made under Section 28A (2) is
precluded from making an application to the Collector
with the request to refer the matter to the Court. Of

¶41

Megha

¶42

6/8

¶43

Megha 21_wp_4916_2018.doc

¶44

course, the Court to which reference is made under
Section 28A (3) will have to bear in mind that a person
who has not sought reference under Section 18 cannot
get compensation higher than the one payable to those
who had sought reference under that section. “

¶45

8.In the instant case, the other land owners have been
awarded compensation of Rs.1,14,000/- per hectare as against their
claim of Rs.2,55,000/- per hectare. The State or the Acquired Body has
not challenged the judgment. However, the judgment and the Award
of the Reference Court has been challenged by the holders and the
appeals are admitted and pending before this Court. The LAO has
declared an award under Section 28A based on the judgment of the
Reference Court and has awarded compensation of Rs.1,14,000/-per
hectare. The Petitioners have not accepted the award under the
Section 28A of the Act and have filed an application to refer the matter
for the determination of the Court. In the light of the principles laid

¶46

down by the Apex Court in V. Ramakrishna Rao (supra), the
Applications under Section 28A (3) are maintainable. The right of the
Petitioners to seek enhanced compensation cannot be frustrated on the
ground that the Petitioners have been paid compensation at par with
other land owners, moreover, when the appeals filed by the other land

¶47

Megha

¶48

7/8

¶49

Megha 21_wp_4916_2018.doc

¶50

owners challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Reference Court are pending before the Court. Needless to state that
the Petitioners would be entitled for higher compensation if the High
Court allows the Appeals and enhances the compensation payable to
the other land owners. In the circumstances, the LAO was not justified
in rejecting the Application. Hence, we pass the following order:-

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(i) The impugned orders dated 18/06/2016 passed by the

¶53

Land Acquisition Officer rejecting the Applications of the

¶54

Petitioners under Section 28(A) (3) are set aside.

¶55

(ii)The matters are remanded to the Special Land
Acquisition Officer with directions to refer the
Application filed by the Petitioners under Section 28A(3)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the Court.

¶56

(iii) The Reference Court shall pass appropriate order only
after and in terms of judgment in First Appeal Nos.1579
of 2011 and 328 of 2008.

¶57

9. The Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

¶58

Megha Parab

¶59

Digitally signed by Megha Parab Date: 2021.01.12 12:47:52 +0530

¶60

(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (A.A. SAYED, J.)

¶61

Megha

¶62

8/8

Laxman Narayan Salekar (J.F.M.) and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Narayan Salekar (J.F.M.) 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

Dhondopant Kondaji Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dhondopant Kondaji Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors. and Nalima S.Vanarse and 4 (Prop.Resp) and Sunil Builders NO.1 (App

Natubhai Gomanbhai Patel Vs Silvassa Municipal Council of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Ors.

Shri. Narayan Gangaram Tejam and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra , Secetary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Manohar Ganesh Patil Vs Managing Director City Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

Shri. Narayan Gangaram Tejam and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra , Secetary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.