RAJARAM GAJANAN GANGAL Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard both the sides.

(2.) BY this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 3rd January, 2000 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre No. III, Panvel, Dist. Raigad rejecting the petitioners claim for payment of 40% of the amount of award dated 5th February, 1998 passed by the respondent No. 1, which was towards their share for compensation as the landlords of the land which has been acquired.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that the land in question is an agricultural land at village Karanjade, Taluka Panvel, Dist. Raigad. The said land was acquired for New Bombay Project in the year 1970. The acquisition proceedings culminated in the Award passed by the authorities on 19th September, 1986. Subsequently, since an award in respect of the neighbouring land, which was also acquired under the same notification, was passed on 21-12-1995, granting the market value higher than the rate granted to the petitioners under the Award dated 19th September, 1986, the tenant in respect of the suit land Shri Bhagat made an application under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act on 18th May, 1996. The said application was entertained by the authorities and order was passed thereon on 5th February, 1998 accepting the plea of the said Shri Bhagat, the tenant in respect of the suit land. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by the said order redetermined the market value of the suit land and awarded additional amount equivalent to the market value granted in respect of the neighbouring land. Pursuant to the said redetermination dated 5th February, 1998, 60% of the redetermined amount has been disbursed to the said Shri Bhagat, tenant in respect of the suit land towards his share. Whereas, the remaining 40% has been retained by the authorities. The petitioners being the owners of the suit land, therefore, made an application on 10th December, 1999 praying that the amount of 40% which has been retained under the redetermination award dated 5th February, 1998 be made over to them. The said request of the petitioners has been rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that the petitioners did not make application under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act along with the tenant Shri Bhagat or independently hence they were not entitled for the said amount. It is this view taken by the Land Acquisition Officer which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.