Hamnant Ganpatrao Vairagkar vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2026)

Hamnant Ganpatrao Vairagkar vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition allowed; impugned order dated 30.03.2021 bearing Outward No.2013@Hkqla@dkoh&22 passed by respondent no.2/Land Acquisition Officer, Latur, quashed and set aside; matter remitted back to respondent no.2 to decide the same in accordance with law within six months from the date of the order; parties directed to co-operate.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act for redetermination of compensation, tendered on 07.10.2013 following the Reference Court's award dated 15.07.2013, fell within the prescribed limitation period of 90 days, or was barred by limitation as held by respondent no.2. +1 more

Court's answer

Once an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act is tendered within the period of 90 days, it could not have been rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation.

Ratio / Principle

Where an application suffers deficiencies such as non-filing of requisite documents (particularly a certified copy), the authorities are expected to raise objections and inform the concerned applicant to remove such deficiencies, rather than reject the application as time-barred.

Key takeaways

On the foregoing reasoning, the impugned order dated 30.03.2021 passed by respondent no.2 is liable to be quashed and set aside.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land Acquisition — Redetermination/enhancement of compensation — Application under S.28-A of the Land Acquisition Act filed on 07.10.2013, within the 90-day limitation period running from the Reference Court's award dated 15.07.2013 in Land Acquisition Reference No.100/1991 (enhanced compensation @ Rs.50/- per sq. ft.), following original acquisition under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act vide award dated 23.09.1986 (File No.77/LNQ-CR-20) — Land Acquisition Officer, Latur (respondent no.2) rejected the application as barred by limitation, relying on the language of S.28-A(1), because it was not accompanied by a certified copy of the Reference Court's award — High Court holds that once a S.28-A application is tendered within the 90-day period it cannot be rejected as time-barred; where requisite documents are deficient, the authorities are expected to raise objections and enable the applicant to cure them — Impugned order dated 30.03.2021 (Outward No.2013@Hkqla@dkoh&22) quashed and set aside; matter remitted to respondent no.2 for decision in accordance with law within six months — Writ petition allowed. (Single judge: S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.; decided 05.01.2026.)

WP-4967-2025.odt

(1)

2026:BHC-AUG:1194

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4967 OF 2025

Hanmant s/o Ganpatrao Vairagkar, Age-55 Years, Occup.- Business, R/o. House No.B42332, Veer Hanmantwadi, Latur, Tq. and Dist. Latur. ..Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra, Through The Collector Latur.

The Sub Divisional Officer, and The Land Acquisition Officer, Latur, Tq. and Dist. Latur.

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Latur. ..Respondent

Mr. G. J. Kore, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. T. M. Venjane, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 05^th JANUARY, 2026.

FINAL ORDER:-

The petitioner takes exception to order dated 30.03.2021

bearing Outward No.2013@Hkqla@dkoh&22 passed by respondent no.2/Land Acquisition Officer, Latur, thereby rejecting petitioner’s application filed under Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act.

The land of petitioner was acquired under provisions of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act vide Award dated 23.09.1986 passed by Assistant Collector/Land Acquisition Officer in File No.77/LNQ-CR-20. The other land holders from same

WP-4967-2025.odt

(2)

Award had filed Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation. On 15.07.2013, in Land Acquisition Reference No.100/1991, Reference Court passed Award of enhanced compensation @ Rs.50/- per sq. ft.. The petitioner filed application under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act for redetermination of compensation before respondent no.2 within limitation period of 90 days as prescribed under law. However, respondent no.2 rejected petitioner’s application observing that application is filed beyond prescribed period of limitation. Hence, this writ petition.

Mr. Kore, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner would submit that Land Acquisition Reference No.100/1991 arising out of same acquisition has been decided by District Judge, Latur vide judgment and Award dated 15.07.2013. The petitioner filed application under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act for redetermination of compensation on 07.10.2013 i.e. within period of 90 days. The respondent no.2 misinterpreted Section 28-A(1) of the Act and rejected Reference being barred by limitation, as it was not accompanied with certified copy of Award of Reference Court passed under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act.

Mr. Gaikwad, learned AGP supports impugned order.

Having considered submissions advanced by learned

Advocates appearing for respective parties and record tendered

WP-4967-2025.odt

(3)

into service before this Court, it can be observed that petitioner filed application under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act based on judgment of Reference Court dated 15.07.2013. Undisputedly, petitioner filed his application on 07.10.2013 alongwith photocopy of judgment and Award passed by Reference Court. The respondent no.2 relying upon language of Section 28-A(1) of Land Acquisition Act observed that if application is not accompanied by certified copy, Court Fees etc. that has to be treated as barred by limitation. The impugned order nowhere refers to objections raised by office of respondent no.2 regarding non-filing of requisite documents, particularly certified copy. In such case, it is expected that Authorities shall raise objection and inform concerned applicant to remove such deficiencies. However, once application under Section 28-A is tendered within period of 90 days, it could not have been rejected holding that it is barred by limitation. In that view of matter, impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, following order:

ORDER

a. Writ Petition is allowed.

b. The impugned order dated 30.03.2021 bearing Outward No.2013@Hkqla@dkoh&22 passed by respondent no.2/Land Acquisition Officer, Latur, is hereby quashed and set aside.

WP-4967-2025.odt

(4)

c. The matter is remitted back to respondent no.2, who shall decide same in accordance with law within period of six months from date of this order.

d. Parties to co-operate.

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE

Devendra/January-2026