Petitioner challenged dismissal of his Section 28-A application filed after four years. Court held delay was inexcusable despite claims of financial constraints. Petition dismissed for want of merit.
Petition dismissed as it was devoid of merits and barred by limitation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
5-wp-2743-2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2743 OF 2023
MADHAV PRALHAD PATE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR AND OTHERS
Mr. S. B. Madde, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for respondent - State
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 12.06.2023.
PER COURT :-
1 of 5
(( 2 )) 5-wp-2743-2023
for certified copy of the award on 26.09.2022, when the date of the award is 11.06.2018. All other co-claimants have preferred the proceedings under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act within limitation.
“ 11 . The object of 28-A seems to be tohelp a person interested, who for the various reasons was unable to file an application for Reference under section 18 of the said Act. The object seems to be to pay the compensation to the person interested to which in law he was entitled by way of an award under section 11 of the said Act. The object is to pay compensation to him to which he was legitimately entitled to on the date of passing an award under section 11
2 of 5
(( 3 ))
5-wp-2743-2023
of the said Act. If sub-section (2) and (3) of section 28-A are read together, it appears that an Award under sub-section (2) is on par an Award under section 11 of the said Act insofar as the provisions of reference under section 18 of the said Act are concerned. Once an Award under sub-section (2) of section 28-A is made, it replaces an Award under section 11 for all purposes as it becomes an offer of the Appropriate Government.”
3 of 5
(( 4 )) 5-wp-2743-2023
paragraph 6, vague and ambiguous contentions are put forth by stating, “the petitioner inadvertently not file Land reference u/s 18 before the competent court. Therefore, the petitioner have no knowledge about passing of impugned order”. It is further stated that, “some of the claimants have received amount of compensation of the acquired land. Thereafter the petitioner has communicated to his advocate and got the legal advice for further proceed. But due to weak financial position the applicant could not make an arrangement of funds for Court fees and other expenses and other necessary documents. It is further submitted by the petitioner that, after arrangement of the funds i.e. on September 2022 he has applied for the certified copy of the order. Therefore, there is some delay in filing the present application. Anyhow the petitioner came to know about passing of judgment and award in the same acquisition process, therefore, on 26.09.2022 the petitioner has applied for certified copy and same is received on 26.09.2022.”
4 of 5
(( 5 )) 5-wp-2743-2023
collect funds without adverting to or setting forth any pleadings about such delay, cannot be countenanced. The petitioner concedes that, there is no judicial pronouncement as regards the delay caused in filing the proceeding under Section 28-A. In fact, Section 28-A is a remedy available to the litigant who has not been able to avail of any remedy under Section 18. Nevertheless, some explanation is necessary to indicate as to why the petitioner could not prefer the proceedings within four years, so as to condone the delay.
[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ]
SMS
5 of 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, filed after four years are maintainable despite a delay in obtaining a certified copy of the award.
Whether the petitioner's financial constraints excuse the limitation period lapse in filing the reference proceedings.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the petition on limitation grounds is perverse or erroneous.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation Vs The State of Maharashtra and othersDistinguished¶4
Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation Vs The State of Maharashtra and others - 2015(3) Mh.L.J. · Who else cites this
Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs. The Deputy Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and anotherReferred¶6
Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs. The Deputy Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and another - 1961 A.I.R. 1961 SC 1500 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Madhav Pralhad Pate
The State of Maharashtra
Ravindra V. Ghuge
Y. G. Khobragade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
