Case Note & Summary
The petitioner was the owner of land admeasuring 1 Hectare 1 R bearing Survey No.148/2 at Village Sastur, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad (now Dharashiv). The land was acquired for rehabilitation of the village, and the Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award on 22/10/1996 under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 granting Rs.24,000/- per hectare. Dissatisfied with the compensation, the petitioner sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The reference, L.A.R. No.595/2005 (Old L.A.R No.255/2000), was rejected by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga on 06/01/2009. The petitioner then filed a Civil Revision Application (Stamp) No.26654/2011 with Civil Application No.12357/2011 for condonation of delay before the High Court, which dismissed the application on 08/12/2011. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 31891/2019, which was also dismissed on the ground of delay. Meanwhile, in the same land acquisition proceedings, the land of one Kusumbai Vishambar Yadav, a co-villager, bearing Survey No.128, was acquired. Her reference L.A.R. No.600/2005 was allowed on 05/12/2014 and compensation was enhanced at Rs.20/- per sq. ft. Based on that enhanced award, the petitioner filed an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector. The Collector rejected the application by order dated 28/12/2018 on the ground that the petitioner had preferred a reference under Section 18. The petitioner challenged that order by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that the reference under Section 18 was not dismissed on merits but only on technical ground of delay, that the orders merged, and that there was no bar under the Act to filing an application under Section 28-A after a Section 18 reference. The petitioner was willing to waive interest for the period before filing the Section 28-A application. The respondent argued that once an application under Section 18 is filed, an application under Section 28-A is not maintainable, and the Collector had rightly rejected it. The Court framed the issue whether the rejection required interference. It analysed the provisions of Sections 18 and 28-A and various precedents, including Mewa Ram and Babua Ram, which held that Section 28-A is not available to persons who had applied for reference under Section 18. The judgment text ends before the final decision is stated.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Re-determination of Compensation - Section 28-A Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Maintainability after Section 18 Reference - The Court considered whether a landowner whose Section 18 reference was rejected and subsequent Civil Revision Application and Special Leave Petition were dismissed on the ground of delay could seek re-determination under Section 28-A based on a co-villager's enhanced award. The Collector rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner had preferred a reference under Section 18. The Court examined precedents holding that the right under Section 28-A is restricted to persons who had not applied for reference under Section 18 and that a party who sought and secured a reference and failed cannot avail Section 28-A. The judgment analysed the scope of Sections 18 and 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the effect of technical dismissal on maintainability. (Paras 8-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order rejecting the Petitioner's application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for having exhausted the remedy of Reference under Section 18 requires interference.
Law Points
- Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 is restricted to persons who had not applied for reference under Section 18
- re-determination under Section 28-A is confined to Award made in Part III and not to appellate judgments or decrees
- dismissal of Section 18 reference on technical ground of delay may not constitute adjudication on merits
- doctrine of merger when Civil Revision Application and SLP dismissed on delay
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (07) 12
Writ Petition No. 2844 of 2020
R. G. Avachat, Neeraj P. Dhote
Mr. R. R. Deshpande h/f Ms. Deshpande Priyanka R., Ms. Vaishali S. Choudhari
Sumanbai w/o Prabhkar Igave
The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Osmanabad; The Sub-Divisional Officer / (Land Acquisition Officer) Omerga, District Osmanabad
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Collector's rejection of an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for re-determination of compensation.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought interference with the Collector's order dated 28/12/2018 rejecting the application under Section 28-A and re-determination of compensation on the basis of a co-villager's enhanced award.
Filing Reason
The Collector rejected the petitioner's application under Section 28-A on the ground that she had preferred a Reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, despite her Reference having been dismissed on technical grounds (delay) rather than merits.
Previous Decisions
Reference under Section 18 (L.A.R. No.595/2005) was rejected by Civil Judge Senior Division Omerga on 06/01/2009; Civil Revision Application (Stamp) No.26654/2011 with Civil Application No.12357/2011 for condonation of delay was dismissed on 08/12/2011; Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).31891/2019 was dismissed on ground of delay; Reference of co-villager L.A.R. No.600/2005 was allowed on 05/12/2014 enhancing compensation at Rs.20/- per sq.ft.
Issues
Whether the impugned order rejecting the Petitioner's application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for having exhausted the remedy of Reference under Section 18 requires interference.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner contended that the Reference under Section 18 was not dismissed on merits but only on technical ground of delay, and the orders merged; hence there was no bar to filing an application under Section 28-A; she was willing to waive interest for the period prior to filing the application.
Petitioner argued that the Reference Court ought to have decided the reference on merits based on documents forwarded under Section 19 even without evidence.
Respondents contended that Section 28-A is not maintainable once an application under Section 18 has been filed, and the petitioner had exhausted that remedy; the Collector rightly rejected the application and no interference was warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
The only question / issue for consideration before us is whether the impugned order rejecting the Petitioner’s Application under Section 28-A of the L. A. Act for having exhausted the remedy of Reference under Section 18 of the L. A. Act requires interference.
As per the provisions of Section 18 of the L. A. Act, any person interested, who has not accepted the Award may, by written Application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred for determination of the Court.
In Mewa Ram (Supra), it is observed that, there is no provision in the Act apart from Section 28-A for reopening of an Award which has become final and conclusive.
the right is restricted to persons who had not applied for Reference under Section 18 of the Act.
the party who sought and secured Reference under Section 18 of the L. A. Act, be the poor or others, and failed before the Civil Court or in Appeal, the right and remedy provided by Section 28-A (1) is not available to him / them.
Procedural History
Land was acquired and Award passed on 22/10/1996 granting Rs.24,000/- per hectare. Petitioner sought reference under Section 18; L.A.R. No.595/2005 was rejected on 06/01/2009. Petitioner filed Civil Revision Application (Stamp) No.26654/2011 with Civil Application No.12357/2011 for condonation of delay; this Court dismissed condonation application on 08/12/2011. Petitioner filed SLP (Civil) Diary No(s).31891/2019, which was dismissed on ground of delay. Co-villager's L.A.R. No.600/2005 was allowed on 05/12/2014 enhancing compensation at Rs.20/- per sq.ft. Petitioner filed application under Section 28-A of L.A. Act; Collector rejected it by order dated 28/12/2018. Petitioner filed present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4, Section 11, Section 18, Section 19, Section 25, Section 28-A
- Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 226
