Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nitin Bharat Savale, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23 November 2022 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (respondent no. 3) rejecting his application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhanced compensation. The petitioner's land at Gat No. 281 was acquired for the Kurduwadi-Miraj-Latur railway line project, and an award was made on 19 December 2003. Another landowner, Mr. Pradeep Bochare, whose land was also acquired for the same project, filed a reference under Section 18 and obtained an enhanced compensation award on 4 March 2022. The petitioner claimed he came to know of this award only later, applied for a certified copy on 23 August 2022, received it on 25 August 2022, and filed his Section 28A application on 16 September 2022. The respondent no. 3 rejected the application as barred by limitation, citing a delay of 44 days from the date of the reference court award. The petitioner attributed the delay to the deaths of his brother and aunt, causing mental agony. The court considered the rival submissions, noting that the petitioner's knowledge of the award was crucial for limitation. The court held that the limitation period under Section 28A runs from the date of knowledge of the award, not the date of the award itself, and that the Collector should have considered the petitioner's explanation for delay. The court found the impugned order arbitrary and illegal, quashed it, and directed the respondent no. 3 to decide the petitioner's application afresh on merits within three months, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Limitation for Section 28A Application - Knowledge of Award - The limitation period of three months under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for filing an application for re-determination of compensation runs from the date of knowledge of the award of the reference court, not from the date of the award itself. The court held that the Collector must consider the applicant's knowledge and sufficient cause for delay. (Paras 3, 14, 18-20)
B) Land Acquisition - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Family bereavements and mental agony constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court held that the Collector should have considered the petitioner's explanation of deaths in the family and granted relief. (Paras 10, 16, 20)
C) Land Acquisition - Section 28A - Procedural Impropriety - The rejection of an application under Section 28A solely on limitation without considering the applicant's knowledge and reasons for delay is procedurally improper and arbitrary. The court directed the Collector to decide the application afresh on merits. (Paras 3, 20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground of limitation was valid, considering the petitioner's lack of knowledge of the reference court award and the delay caused by family bereavements.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 23 November 2022, and directed respondent no. 3 to decide the petitioner's application under Section 28A afresh on merits within three months, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
Law Points
- Limitation under Section 28A Land Acquisition Act runs from date of knowledge of award
- Condonation of delay for sufficient cause
- Section 5 of Limitation Act not applicable but principles apply
- Liberal interpretation of limitation for land acquisition cases
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (02) 292
Writ Petition No. 4475 of 2023
G. S. Kulkarni, Advait M. Sethna
Mr. Sujeet Bugade (for Petitioner), Mr. Prashant P. More (Addl. GP for State Respondents)
State of Maharashtra, District Collector Solapur, Smt. Manisha Avahale (Special Land Acquisition Officer), Union of India (Central Railway)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 challenging the rejection of an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhanced compensation on the ground of limitation.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus declaring Section 28A procedurally improper and quashing the impugned order rejecting his application for enhanced compensation, with a direction to condone the delay and decide the application on merits.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's application under Section 28A for enhanced compensation was rejected by the Special Land Acquisition Officer solely on the ground that it was barred by limitation, without considering the petitioner's lack of knowledge of the reference court award and the delay caused by family bereavements.
Previous Decisions
The reference court in LAR No. 75 of 2009 granted enhanced compensation to another landowner, Mr. Pradeep Bochare, on 4 March 2022. The petitioner's Section 28A application was rejected by the respondent no. 3 on 23 November 2022.
Issues
Whether the limitation period under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 runs from the date of the reference court award or from the date of knowledge of the award.
Whether the delay of 44 days in filing the Section 28A application was condonable on grounds of sufficient cause, including family bereavements and lack of knowledge.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the limitation period under Section 28A should be reckoned from the date of knowledge of the reference court award, which was 25 August 2022 when he received the certified copy, and that the delay was due to deaths in the family.
Respondents argued that the application was barred by limitation as per the proviso to Section 28A, which requires filing within three months from the date of the award.
Ratio Decidendi
The limitation period under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for filing an application for re-determination of compensation runs from the date of knowledge of the award of the reference court, not from the date of the award itself. The Collector must consider the applicant's knowledge and sufficient cause for delay before rejecting the application as time-barred.
Judgment Excerpts
The principle issue for consideration is premised on the validity and legality of the Impugned Order dated 23 November 2022 passed by respondent no. 3. The said order rejected the petitioner’s application for enhanced compensation made under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 dated 16 September 2022, solely on the ground that such application is barred by limitation under the proviso to section 28A of Land Acquisition Act.
Thus, according to Mr. Bugade, the limitation period of three months as stipulated under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act ought to be reckoned from the date of the petitioner making an application for certified copy of the order of the Reference Court which was so done on 23 August 2022 and/or on 25 August 2022 being the date on which petitioner received certified copy of the said order.
Procedural History
The award under Section 11 was made on 19 December 2003. A reference application under Section 18 by another landowner was decided on 4 March 2022. The petitioner applied for a certified copy of that order on 23 August 2022 and received it on 25 August 2022. The petitioner filed a Section 28A application on 16 September 2022, which was rejected on 23 November 2022. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on 27 January 2023.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 28A, Section 18, Section 11, Section 12(2), Section 23(1A), Section 23(2), Section 28
- Constitution of India: Article 226
