Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, owners of land acquired for the Arunavati Project, filed an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking enhanced compensation based on a reference court award. The Special Land Acquisition Officer rejected their application by order dated 28.2.1994 without affording them any opportunity of hearing. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The High Court observed that Section 28A contemplates a right to apply for enhancement and requires the authority to consider the application in accordance with law, which includes giving fair and equal opportunity to all persons affected. The court noted that no personal hearing was given, which is necessary for effective determination. Without expressing any opinion on merits, the court quashed the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the respondents for reconsideration, directing them to provide all opportunities as contemplated under law and to pass orders within three months. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Enhanced Compensation - Section 28A Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Right to Hearing - The petitioners' application for enhanced compensation under Section 28A was rejected without granting any opportunity of hearing. The court held that Section 28A mandates a fair opportunity, including personal hearing, to the affected persons to place materials in support of their claim. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remanded for reconsideration with proper hearing. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order determining enhanced compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was passed without affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
The impugned orders dated 28.2.1994 are quashed and set aside. The matters are remanded for reconsideration in accordance with law, to be decided as early as possible, preferably within three months. Rule made absolute. No costs.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- right to hearing
- Section 28A Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- enhanced compensation
- fair opportunity
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (01) 81
WRIT PETITION NO.1325 OF 1999
ANOOP V. MOHTA, A.R. JOSHI
Mr. R.M. Bhangade for Petitioners, Mr. S.S. Doifode, A.G.P. for Respondents
Zama Gotya Jadhav (since deceased) through Somla s/o Zamla Jadhav, Sheshrao Narayan Khatare, Dattu Raoji Semde
The State of Maharashtra, The Collector, Yavatmal, The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Benefitted Zone Arunavati Project, Yavatmal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order rejecting application for enhanced compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the impugned order dated 28.2.1994 and direction to reconsider the application with opportunity of hearing.
Filing Reason
The petitioners' application for enhanced compensation was rejected without affording them an opportunity of hearing.
Previous Decisions
The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the impugned order dated 28.2.1994 rejecting the application for enhanced compensation.
Issues
Whether the impugned order under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was passed without affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that no opportunity of hearing was given before rejecting their application for enhanced compensation.
Respondents did not contest the procedural lapse.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 mandates that the authority must give a fair opportunity, including personal hearing, to the applicant before determining the enhanced compensation. Failure to do so vitiates the order.
Judgment Excerpts
no opportunity of hearing and or personal hearing, as contemplated under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was given to the petitioners to determine the enhanced amount of compensation on the basis of the Award passed.
The concerned authority is, therefore, required to consider the same in accordance with law which includes fair and equal opportunity to all the persons affected.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhanced compensation. The Special Land Acquisition Officer rejected the application by order dated 28.2.1994 without hearing the petitioners. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition in 1999. The matter was heard finally on 6.1.2015 and disposed of.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 28A
