Allowed¶20

Babarao S/O Pandu Urwate and Others v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Collector, Yavatmal and Others

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 28-A

Bombay HC18 Mar 2025WP/2714/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 28-A Land Acquisition Act 1894; enhancement/revision of compensation at par with similarly situated persons; rejection for want of signatures and date held curable defect; beneficial statute; Land Acquisition Officer Yavatmal; communication dated 05.09.2022 quashed; matter remanded to respondent No.2; opportunity to cure defects; writ petition allowed; Nagpur Bench; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed: impugned order dated 05.09.2022 quashed and set aside; matter remitted to Respondent No.2 to grant the Petitioners opportunity to carry out corrections and process the Section 28-A application in accordance with law; no costs. ¶20

Babarao S/O Pandu Urwate and Others vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection of the petitioners' applications under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 solely on the ground that the applications did not bear the signatures and date of the petitioners was sustainable, and whether an opportunity to cure those defects ought to have been granted.

¶17

Court's answer

The objections on which the application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was rejected are curable defects; the statute being beneficial in nature, the concerned Land Acquisition Officer was required to grant the Petitioners an opportunity to make the necessary corrections.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 05.09.2022 (page 108) is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to Respondent No.2 to grant the Petitioners an opportunity to carry out the corrections and then process the application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in terms of the applicable law.

¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 28-A - Application for revision of compensation at par with similarly situated persons rejected solely because the applications did not bear the signatures and date of the applicants, though receipt of the applications by respondent No.2 was not disputed - Held, the objections were curable defects and the Act being beneficial in nature, the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have granted an opportunity to the Petitioners to make the corrections - Communication dated 09.06.2016 (page 34) showing submission of all applications duly signed with requisite documents could also have been considered - Impugned order dated 05.09.2022 (page 108) quashed and set aside; matter remitted to Respondent No.2 to permit corrections and process the Section 28-A applications in terms of law - Writ Petition allowed, no costs.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:2865-DB

¶2

1 31.WP.2714-2024.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2714 OF 2024

¶5

( Babarao S/o Pandu Urwate & Ors. Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Yavatmal & Ors. )

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Mr. M.A. Sable, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S.M. Ukey, Addl.GP for the Respondents/State.

¶9

CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 21^st MARCH, 2025

¶11

Heard Mr. Sable, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Ukey, learned Addl.GP for the Respondents/State.

¶12

2 . The learned Addl.GP for the Respondents/State, has tendered across the bar an affidavit in response to the notice issued in the Petition.

¶13

3 . On 18.03.2025, we had recorded the following

¶14

position:

¶15

“The only ground on which the applications under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 filed by the petitioners, for revising the compensation at par which has been granted to persons similarly situated, as is discernible from the impugned

¶16

2 31.WP.2714-2024.odt

¶17

communication dated 05-9-2022 (Page No. 108), is that the applications, did not bear the signatures and date of the petitioners. The impugned communication, indicates that the applications have been received by the respondent No.2. Since the above is the only ground, he could have obtained the signatures of the petitioners as that would have been a formality, on account of the fact that receipt of the applications is not disputed. The rejection is only on that count. This is an action, which is correctable, and does not go to the root of the matter, which could have been done by the respondent No.2.”

¶18

4 . The same stand, which is reflected from the impugned order dated 05.09.2022 (page 108), is reiterated in the reply. We find, that the objections on which the application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be rejected, are curable defects and considering the nature of the statue which is beneficial in nature, it was necessary for the concerned Land Acquisition Officer, to grant an opportunity to the Petitioners to make according corrections. In fact, the communication dated 09.06.2016 (page 34), indicates the submission of all the applications duly signed with the requisite documents, which could also have taken into consideration by the Respondent No.2. Since that has not been done and the opportunity to make the appropriate corrections, has not been granted, we hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 05.09.2022 (page 108) and remit the matter back to the Respondent No.2 to grant an opportunity to the Petitioners, to carryout the corrections sought from them and then to process the application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in terms of the law as applicable.

¶19

3 31.WP.2714-2024.odt

¶20

5 . The Petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms. No costs.

¶21

6 . Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶22

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶23

SD. Bhimte

¶24

Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 21/03/2025 18:12:06

Babarao S/O Pandu Urwate and Others v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Collector, Yavatmal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babarao S/O Pandu Urwate and Others v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Collector, Yavatmal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shri Sambhaji Raje Shikshan Sanstha, Dongarkhandala, Thr. President, Radheshyam R. Chandak and Ors. Vs Depury Director of Education Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

Tej Singh Jatan S/O Jaibir Singh Vs Union of India, through Its Principal Secretary, New Delhi and Others

Ashok Jaysingh Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Anr.

Ajit S/O. Anil Khadatkar vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary for Films Information and Tech. Dept., New Delhi and Ors.

Gajanan Champatrao Yadao vs Bhausaheb Mulak Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Thr Principal, Thr Principal, Nagpur and Others

Dadahari Education Foundation, Thr. Director, Ajit Anilrao Warpurdkar vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fishery, Mumbai and Anr.