Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Annasaheb Tulsiram Kharat, owned land at Village Mirgavan, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur, which was acquired for the Sina-Kolegaon Irrigation Project. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 30-04-1998, and the award was declared on 12-02-2002. The petitioner was offered compensation but was dissatisfied. Several other landowners filed references under Section 18 for redetermination of compensation. The petitioner also filed a reference under Section 18 on 29-02-2004 before the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO). The SLAO referred the matter to the Civil Judge Senior Division, Barshi. However, the petitioner failed to pay the requisite court fees under Article 15 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, despite notice. Consequently, the reference was dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on 13-06-2006 for non-payment of court fees. Meanwhile, some other landowners obtained a higher compensation through the reference court. The petitioner then filed an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act on 11-03-2014 seeking the benefit of that higher award. The Deputy Collector rejected the application on 11-03-2014, holding that since the petitioner's own reference was dismissed for default, he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 28A. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition, affirming the Deputy Collector's order. The court reasoned that Section 28A is intended for those who did not seek a reference under Section 18. Since the petitioner had sought a reference but failed to prosecute it diligently, he could not later claim the benefit of a higher award under Section 28A. The court also noted that the petitioner had not challenged the dismissal of his reference. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Section 28A Application - Rejection - The petitioner's land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After the award, the petitioner filed a reference under Section 18 which was dismissed for non-payment of court fees. Subsequently, the petitioner applied under Section 28A seeking redetermination of compensation based on a higher award obtained by other landowners. The Deputy Collector rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner had not diligently pursued the reference. The High Court upheld the rejection, holding that the petitioner cannot take advantage of Section 28A when his own reference was dismissed for default. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deputy Collector was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the ground that the petitioner's reference under Section 18 of the said Act was dismissed for non-payment of court fees, thereby disentitling him to the benefit of a higher award obtained by other landowners.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Deputy Collector rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Bombay Court Fees Act
- 1959
