Disposed¶31

Baliram Devrao Sargar v. the State of Maharashtra through the District Collector and Others

Bombay HC22 Mar 2024WP/1804/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 28A Land Acquisition Act 1894; belated application; untraceable record; land acquisition 1980; application dated 6 January 1992 through Advocate N.R. Dhepe, Beed; Majalgaon authority; Beed and Ambajogai Division; writ petition disposed with liberty to revive upon tracing acknowledgement; settled Supreme Court and Bombay High Court judgments on declining belated Section 28A claims.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file an Application in this disposed off Petition for seeking appropriate orders, if the Petitioner traces out details about the acknowledgement of the Application which may indicate that a proposal was actually tendered to the said office. ¶31

Baliram Devrao Sargar Vs the State of Maharashtra through… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner's purported Application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claimed to have been tendered in 1992, can be entertained when the entire record pertaining to it is untraceable, in light of the settled law on declining to entertain belated applications.

¶13

Court's answer

The law on declining to entertain belated applications under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is settled in the judgments listed by the Court.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

In view of the settled law, this Writ Petition is disposed off.

¶31

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to file an Application in this disposed off Petition for seeking appropriate orders if he traces out some details about the acknowledgement of the Application, which may indicate that a proposal was actually tendered to the said office.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (Ravindra V. Ghuge and R. M. Joshi, JJ., per court), 22 March 2024, Writ Petition No. 1804 of 2024 (Baliram Devrao Sargar v. The State of Maharashtra & others) - disposed of. The petitioner claimed to have tendered an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in 1992 (dated 6th January, 1992, through Advocate Mr. N.R. Dhepe, Beed) relating to land acquired in 1980; the learned AGP submitted that the entire record of the purported application is untraceable and no such application exists in the records, though the Beed and Ambajogai Division record is available at Majalgaon. Noting that the law on declining to entertain belated Section 28A applications is settled (ten judgments listed, including Bir Wati v. Union of India (2017) 16 SCC 548 and Tota Ram v. State of U.P. (1997) 6 SCC 280), the Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to file an application in the disposed-of petition for appropriate orders if he traces acknowledgement details indicating a proposal was actually tendered.

¶1

¶2

wp1804.24.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1804 OF 2024

¶5

Baliram Devrao Sargar .. Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. D. R. Jayabhar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for the State.

¶10

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND R. M. JOSHI, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 22^nd MARCH, 2024.

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

The learned AGP submits that the entire record pertaining to the purported application of the Petitioner under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is untraceable. His Officers have carried out a search in the records. The land acquisition dates back to 1980. The Petitioner claims to have tendered an Application under Section 28A of the Act in the year 1992. The record regarding Beed and Ambajogai Division is available with the authority at Majalgaon. A herculean effort to trace out the application purportedly filed by the Petitioner was undertaken by the

¶14

¶15

wp1804.24.odt

¶16

authority. He submits that there is no application by date 6^th January, 1992 filed through Advocate Mr. N.R. Dhepe, Beed.

¶17

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, since the Advocate did not communicate any progress on the said application, the Petitioner has approached this Court after 32 years.

¶18

The law on declining to entertain belated applications under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is settled in the following judgments :

¶19

(i) Bir Wati and others vs. Union of India and another (2017) 16 SCC 548

¶20

(ii) Tota Ram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (1997) 6 SCC 280

¶21

(iii) Union of India vs. Mangatu Ram AIR 1997 SC 2704

¶22

(iv) State of Andhra Pradesh and another vs. Marri Venkaiah and others AIR 2003 SC 2949

¶23

(v) Jose Antonio Cruz Dox vs. L.A.O. AIR 1997 SC 1915.

¶24

(vi) Popat Bahiru Govardhane etc. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another 2013 AIR SCW 6550

¶25

(vii) The Martin Burn Ltd. vs. The Corporation of Calcutta AIR 1966 SC 529

¶26

¶27

wp1804.24.odt

¶28

(viii) Parasmal s/o Kunjilal Jain vs. The State of Maharashtra and another 2015(7) ALL MR 320

¶29

(ix) Narayan s/o Dhondu Sarode, Dead through LRs and others vs. The Collector, Jalgaon and another Judgment dated 27.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 1632/2011 (Supreme Court)

¶30

(x) Sheshabai @ Subhadrabai w/o Gyanoba Madale vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2024(1) Mh.L.J. 317.

¶31

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed off.

¶32

In the event the Petitioner traces out some details about the acknowledgement of the Application, which may indicate that a proposal was actually tendered to the said office, we grant him liberty to file an Application in this disposed off Petition for seeking appropriate orders.

¶33

( R. M. JOSHI) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) JUDGE JUDGE

¶34

dyb

Baliram Devrao Sargar v. the State of Maharashtra through the District Collector and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baliram Devrao Sargar v. the State of Maharashtra through the District Collector and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Ashfaq Ahmed Syed Chand Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vaishali Nilesh Kawathekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Dharmchand Hedau Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

The Valha Cooperative Society through Its Director Pralhad Balasaheb Hekade and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

The District Collector, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Ors. Vs Chhagan Bhika Jadhav

Pravin Govind Surve Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others