Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sheshabai @ Subhadrabai w/o Gyanoba Madale, owned land in Survey No./Gat No.227/5 and 227/9 at village Sakol, Taluka Shirur Anantpal, District Latur. The land was acquired for the Sakol Medium Project on 09.12.1996, with a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published on 26.06.1999. The award was delivered on 21.12.2001, quantifying compensation at Rs. 610 per R. The petitioner did not file a reference under Section 18. However, other co-claimants filed LAR No.115/2006, and by judgment dated 30.01.2012, the Land Acquisition Reference Court partly allowed the reference, enhancing compensation to Rs.1,754/- per R for dry land and Rs.2,631/- per R for irrigated land. The petitioner claimed she only gained knowledge of this judgment on 21.09.2019, immediately applied for a certified copy, and filed an application under Section 28-A on 29.11.2019. The Sub Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Nilanga (respondent No.3), rejected the application on 17.12.2019 solely on the ground of delay. The petitioner challenged this rejection by filing a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The court considered the issue of whether delay in filing an application under Section 28-A can be condoned. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's order in Karam Chand (dead) by LR's and Another Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and another, which held that delay can be condoned. The court also noted that the petitioner had no knowledge of the judgment and acted promptly after gaining knowledge. The court found that the delay was not deliberate and the petitioner had sufficient cause. The court quashed the impugned order dated 17.12.2019 and directed respondent No.3 to decide the petitioner's application under Section 28-A on merits within three months, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The court also directed that the enhanced compensation, if any, be paid to the petitioner within three months thereafter.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation Enhancement - Section 28-A Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Limitation - The petitioner, whose land was acquired, did not file a reference under Section 18 but applied under Section 28-A after learning of a judgment enhancing compensation for co-claimants. The application was rejected solely on the ground of delay. The High Court held that the delay was not deliberate and the petitioner had sufficient cause, as she had no knowledge of the judgment until 21.09.2019 and applied promptly thereafter. The court condoned the delay and directed the authority to decide the application on merits within three months. (Paras 1-10) B) Land Acquisition - Condonation of Delay - Section 28-A Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sufficient Cause - The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Karam Chand (dead) by LR's and Another Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and another, which held that delay in filing an application under Section 28-A can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown. The court found that the petitioner's lack of knowledge and immediate action constituted sufficient cause. (Paras 4, 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay in filing an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can be condoned when the applicant had no knowledge of the judgment in the reference petition and applied within a reasonable time after gaining such knowledge.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 17.12.2019 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to decide the petitioner's application under Section 28-A on merits within three months from the date of the order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The enhanced compensation, if any, shall be paid to the petitioner within three months thereafter.
Law Points
- Section 28-A Land Acquisition Act 1894
- condonation of delay
- limitation period for filing application
- knowledge of award
- sufficient cause
- liberal interpretation of limitation
