Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Parasmal Jain, was a landowner whose land was acquired by the State of Maharashtra for the Upper Wainganga Project. An award under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was passed on 24 September 1979. The petitioner sought a reference under Section 18 for enhanced compensation, which was decided on 17 February 1988. Other landowners whose lands were acquired under the same notification filed first appeals under Section 54, which were decided on 22 March 1993, enhancing the compensation. The petitioner, claiming ignorance of the appeal decision, filed an application under Section 28A on 19 December 1995, seeking the benefit of enhanced compensation. The application was accompanied by a delay condonation application, as it was filed beyond the three-month period from the date of the appellate judgment. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (respondent No.2) rejected the delay condonation application on 28 February 1996, holding that the cause shown was insufficient. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court noted that the petitioner had stated that he had no knowledge of the appeal decision until he came to know about it from other sources. The court observed that the delay was not intentional and that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause. The court held that the Special Land Acquisition Officer ought to have condoned the delay and directed him to consider the petitioner's application under Section 28A on its own merits. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed and set aside.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Condonation of Delay - Section 28A Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sufficient Cause - Petitioner sought enhanced compensation under Section 28A after delay of over two years from the appellate court's decision - Petitioner claimed ignorance of the appeal decision as cause for delay - Held that the Special Land Acquisition Officer ought to have condoned the delay as the petitioner had shown sufficient cause, and the application should be considered on merits (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay in filing an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhanced compensation should be condoned when the petitioner had no knowledge of the appellate court's decision.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28-2-1996 is quashed and set aside. The Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed to consider the petitioner's application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on its own merits in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Section 28A Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Liberal approach
- Knowledge of judgment
