Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court dealt with three writ petitions filed by the Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation Limited, the acquiring body for the Bori Medium Project in Solapur district. The land acquisition process began with notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issued on 29 January 1998 and 6 June 1999 respectively, and an award under Section 11 was passed on 30 October 2000. One landowner, Sidram Bamshetti Bharamshetti, challenged the award under Section 18, leading to LAR No.183 of 2001, which was disposed of on 14 December 2019 by a compromise award passed by the National Lok Adalat. Based on that award, the respondents (other landowners) filed an application under Section 28-A on 15 February 2020 for re-determination of compensation. The Special Land Acquisition Officer initially rejected the application, but on a writ petition (W.P. No.899 of 2021), the High Court directed re-determination, and on 29 August 2021, the officer allowed the application and granted enhanced compensation with interest. The acquiring body challenged this award under Article 227, arguing that a Lok Adalat award cannot be the basis for Section 28-A re-determination, that no inquiry under Section 28-A(2) was conducted, and that administrative expenses were wrongly included. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition was not maintainable because Section 28-A(3) provides an alternative remedy of reference to the civil court. The court analyzed the statutory scheme of Section 28-A, noting that it was introduced to benefit inarticulate landowners by allowing them to seek re-determination of compensation based on a court award under Section 18. The court held that the acquiring body is not a 'person interested' under Section 3(b) and cannot seek a reference under Section 28-A(3). Moreover, the bar under Section 50(2) against the acquiring body demanding a reference under Section 18 also applies to Section 28-A(3). However, the court found that the acquiring body had an alternative remedy under Section 28-A(3) itself, as it could have sought a reference if it did not accept the award under Section 28-A(2). Since the acquiring body failed to avail that remedy, the writ petition under Article 227 was not maintainable. The court dismissed all three petitions, leaving the question of maintainability of the reference under Section 28-A(3) open for the civil court to decide if the acquiring body chooses to seek a reference.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Maintainability of Reference - Acquiring Body's Right - Section 28-A(3) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The acquiring body is not a 'person interested' under Section 3(b) and cannot seek reference under Section 28-A(3) as the remedy is available only to persons who have not accepted the award under Section 28-A(2). The bar under Section 50(2) applicable to Section 18 also applies to Section 28-A(3). (Paras 8-16)
B) Land Acquisition - Alternative Remedy - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of Constitution of India - A writ petition under Article 227 challenging an award under Section 28-A is not maintainable when the acquiring body has an alternative remedy of seeking a reference under Section 28-A(3). The Court held that the petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. (Paras 17-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquiring body for whose benefit land has been acquired can maintain a reference under Section 28-A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and whether a writ petition under Article 227 is maintainable to challenge an award under Section 28-A.
Final Decision
The court dismissed all three writ petitions as not maintainable, holding that the acquiring body has an alternative remedy under Section 28-A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to seek a reference to the civil court. The court did not decide the merits of the challenge.
Law Points
- Section 28-A(3) of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 provides remedy only to persons who have not accepted the award under Section 28-A(2)
- acquiring body is not a 'person interested' under Section 3(b) and cannot seek reference
- Section 50(2) bars acquiring body from demanding reference under Section 18
- which applies to Section 28-A(3) as well
- writ petition under Article 227 is not maintainable when alternative remedy of reference under Section 28-A(3) is available.
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (9) 195
Writ Petition No. 12456 of 2023 with Writ Petition No. 12458 of 2023 and Writ Petition No. 12457 of 2023
Ms. Chaitrali A. Deshmukh for the Petitioner, Ms. Shruti Tulpule for the Respondent No. 1, Ms. Tanu Bhatia, AGP for the Respondent-State
Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation Limited
Baburao Ishwar Sathe (since deceased through LRs) and Others; Mainoddin G. Shaikh (since deceased through LRs) and Others; Shivaji Limbaji Chavan and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an award passed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner, Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation Limited (acquiring body), sought to quash the award dated 29 August 2021 granting enhanced compensation to the respondents.
Filing Reason
The petitioner challenged the award on grounds of absence of inquiry under Section 28-A(2), non-issuance of notice, and inclusion of administrative expenses.
Previous Decisions
The Special Land Acquisition Officer initially rejected the respondents' application under Section 28-A, but on a writ petition (W.P. No. 899 of 2021), the High Court directed re-determination, leading to the impugned award.
Issues
Whether the acquiring body can maintain a reference under Section 28-A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether a writ petition under Article 227 is maintainable to challenge an award under Section 28-A when an alternative remedy of reference under Section 28-A(3) exists.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that Section 28-A does not contemplate re-determination based on a Lok Adalat award, and that the acquiring body cannot seek reference under Section 28-A(3) due to the bar under Section 50(2) and the limited scope of Section 18.
Respondent argued that Section 28-A(3) provides a remedy to 'any person' including the acquiring body, and that the writ petition is not maintainable as an alternative remedy of reference is available.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition under Article 227 challenging an award under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is not maintainable when the petitioner has an alternative remedy of seeking a reference under Section 28-A(3). The acquiring body, though not a 'person interested' and barred by Section 50(2) from seeking a reference under Section 18, can still seek a reference under Section 28-A(3) if it does not accept the award under Section 28-A(2). The court left the question of maintainability of such a reference open for the civil court to decide.
Judgment Excerpts
The pivotal issue raised by the preliminary objection is whether the acquiring body for whose benefit the land has been acquired can maintain a reference under Section 28-A(3) of LA Act.
Section 28-A was introduced in the statute book by Amendment Act 68 of 1984... the object... to provide an opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose land is covered under the same notification to seek re-determination of compensation, once any one of them has obtained orders for payment of higher compensation from the reference court under Section 18 of the Act.
The acquiring body is not a 'person interested' under Section 3(b) of the LA Act and cannot seek a reference under Section 28-A(3). However, the acquiring body has an alternative remedy under Section 28-A(3) itself to seek a reference if it does not accept the award under Section 28-A(2).
Procedural History
The land acquisition process began with notifications under Sections 4 and 6 in 1998-1999, and an award under Section 11 was passed on 30 October 2000. One landowner filed a reference under Section 18 (LAR No.183 of 2001), which was disposed of by a compromise award by the National Lok Adalat on 14 December 2019. The respondents filed an application under Section 28-A on 15 February 2020, which was initially rejected. They filed Writ Petition No. 899 of 2021, and the High Court directed re-determination on 17 March 2021. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the impugned award on 29 August 2021. The acquiring body filed the present writ petitions under Article 227 on an unspecified date.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 3(b), Section 4, Section 6, Section 11, Section 18, Section 25, Section 28-A, Section 50(2)
- Constitution of India: Article 227
