Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Surendrakumar Madhusudan Mor, owned land bearing Gat No.128 admeasuring 5.27 hectares at mouza Pimpri (Hatgaon), Taluka and District Yavatmal. The State of Maharashtra issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 18th January 2003 proposing to acquire 33.95 hectares of land for a minor irrigation project, including 2.27 hectares of the petitioner's land. A notification under Section 6 was issued on 24th March 2003, and the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 30th July 2003, assessing compensation at Rs.36,000 per hectare based on stamp duty rates prescribed by the State Government. The petitioner received the compensation under protest. Subsequently, on 21st March 2011, the petitioner filed an application under Section 28A of the Act seeking redetermination of compensation on the basis of a higher amount awarded in another case. The Collector, Yavatmal, by communication dated 9th May 2011, rejected the application on the ground that it was filed beyond the limitation period of three months from the date of the award as prescribed under Section 28A. The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 28A insofar as it prescribes a three-month limitation, arguing that it is arbitrary and deprives landholders of rightful compensation. The court considered whether the limitation period is reasonable and whether the classification between persons who accept the award and those who seek reference under Section 18 is valid. The court held that the limitation period of three months is reasonable and the classification is based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object of speedy determination of compensation. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of Section 28A and the Collector's communication.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Validity of Limitation Period - Section 28A Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Reasonable Classification - The court examined whether the three-month limitation under Section 28A for seeking redetermination of compensation is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. Held that the classification between persons who accept the award and those who seek reference under Section 18 is based on intelligible differentia and has rational nexus to the object of speedy determination of compensation. The limitation period is reasonable and not unconstitutional (Paras 5-10).
B) Land Acquisition - Redetermination of Compensation - Section 28A Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Limitation - The petitioner's land was acquired, and award was passed on 30th July 2003. The petitioner applied for redetermination under Section 28A on 21st March 2011, which was beyond three months from the date of the award. The Collector rejected the application by communication dated 9th May 2011. Held that the application was clearly barred by limitation, and the Collector's communication was valid (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in so far as it provides for a limitation of three months for filing an application for redetermination of compensation, is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the constitutional validity of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the communication dated 9th May 2011 from the Collector, Yavatmal. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Limitation period for filing application under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 is three months from the date of award
- Reasonable classification between persons who accept award and those who seek reference under Section 18 is valid
- Section 28A does not violate Article 14 of Constitution
- Communication from Collector rejecting application beyond limitation is valid
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (07) 158
Writ Petition No.2267 of 2012
S.C. Dharmadhikari, M.T. Joshi
Mr. S.C. Mehadia for the petitioner, Mr. N.W. Sambre, Govt. Pleader, for the respondents
Surendrakumar Madhusudan Mor
The State of Maharashtra, The Collector, Yavatmal
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 constitutional validity of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and seeking setting aside of a communication from the Collector.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a declaration that Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is unconstitutional and void insofar as it prescribes a limitation of three months, and sought setting aside of the communication dated 9th May 2011 from the Collector, Yavatmal.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's application under Section 28A for redetermination of compensation was rejected by the Collector on the ground of limitation, and the petitioner challenged the limitation provision as arbitrary.
Previous Decisions
The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 30th July 2003 assessing compensation at Rs.36,000 per hectare. The petitioner received compensation under protest. The Collector rejected the petitioner's application under Section 28A by communication dated 9th May 2011.
Issues
Whether Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in so far as it provides for a limitation of three months for filing an application for redetermination of compensation, is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the communication dated 9th May 2011 from the Collector, Yavatmal, rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 28A, is liable to be set aside.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the three-month limitation under Section 28A is arbitrary and deprives landholders of rightful compensation, and that the classification between persons who accept the award and those who seek reference under Section 18 is unreasonable.
The respondents argued that the limitation period is reasonable and the classification is valid, and that the petitioner's application was clearly barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi
The three-month limitation period under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for filing an application for redetermination of compensation is reasonable and not arbitrary. The classification between persons who accept the award and those who seek reference under Section 18 is based on intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus to the object of speedy determination of compensation. Therefore, Section 28A does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
Judgment Excerpts
By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in so far as it provides for limitation of three months for filing of an application thereunder on the ground that it deprives the land holders from getting rightful amount of compensation.
The petitioner submits that he owns the land bearing Gat No.128 admeasuring 5.27 hectares situated at mouza Pimpri (Hatgaon), Taluka and District Yavatmal.
The award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 30th July 2003 and in respect of the land of the petitioner, compensation was assessed at Rs.36,000/ per hectare to the petitioner.
The petitioner filed an application under section 28A of the Act on 21st March 2011.
The Collector, Yavatmal, by communication dated 9th May 2011, rejected the application on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation.
Procedural History
The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 30th July 2003. The petitioner received compensation under protest. On 21st March 2011, the petitioner filed an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for redetermination of compensation. The Collector, Yavatmal, by communication dated 9th May 2011, rejected the application as barred by limitation. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of Section 28A and seeking setting aside of the communication.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 28A, Section 4, Section 6, Section 18
- Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 226
