Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sunil Radhesham Shukla and others, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the order dated 30/09/2020 passed by the Reference Court (Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha) in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 1/2014. The Reference Court had rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking re-determination of compensation on the basis of the award passed in the reference. The land of the petitioners was acquired for the Jawaharlal Nehru Dry Port Project at Sindi (Rly), District Wardha. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation, which was challenged by some claimants in a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation. The petitioners, who were not parties to the reference, filed an application under Section 28-A for re-determination of compensation. The Reference Court rejected the application on the ground that the petitioners had not made a valid application within the prescribed period of limitation. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 28-A and the evidence on record. The Court noted that the petitioners had not produced any evidence to show that they had made an application under Section 28-A within three months from the date of the award of the Reference Court. The Court also observed that the petitioners had not impleaded the original claimants in the reference. The High Court held that the Reference Court had correctly rejected the application. The Court further held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 54 of the Act. However, on merits, the Court found no substance in the petition. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Re- determination of Compensation - The petitioners, who were not original applicants in the reference under Section 18, sought re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A based on the award of the Reference Court. The Court held that the petitioners failed to prove that they had made a valid application under Section 28-A within the prescribed period of limitation. The Reference Court's rejection of the application was upheld. (Paras 1-23) B) Land Acquisition - Reference under Section 18 - Maintainability of Writ Petition - The Court held that the writ petition challenging the order of the Reference Court rejecting the application under Section 28-A was not maintainable as the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, the Court proceeded to examine the merits and found no substance. (Paras 1-23)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhanced compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and whether the writ petition is maintainable against the order of the Reference Court rejecting their application.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Reference Court rejecting the application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition
- Compensation
- Reference under Section 18
- Application under Section 28-A
- Limitation
- Maintainability of Writ Petition
