UMADEVI RAJKUMAR JEURE Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SOLAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges an order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Solapur on an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and seeks directions for conducting a fresh inquiry under that Section. The petition raises a substantial question of law, namely, whether an award passed by a Lok-Adalat can be considered an award of the court under Part III of the Land Acquisition Act for the purposes of Section 28A of that Act.

(2.) The Petitioners' land along with several other lands was acquired by the State for a storage lake. An award dated 26 February 2010 was made under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("LA Act") in respect of the acquired lands. Compensation was paid to landholders including the Petitioners herein after duly issuing notices under Section 12(2) of the LA Act. Sometime later, a Land Acquisition Reference (LAR No.18 of 2011) was filed before the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur by one of the landholders, one Sangappa Irappa Dabare. The LAR was taken before a Lok Adalat. By a compromise entered into on 13 December 2014, an award was made by the Lok Adalat for payment of enhanced compensation by the State towards acquisition of the Applicant's land (Gat No.179/5 admeasuring 1.20 H at Village Karjgi, Taluka Akkalkot, District Solapur) together with solatium and interest. Based on this award, on or about 2 March 2015, the Petitioners made an application for enhanced compensation under Section 28A(1) of the LA Act for their properties, being Gat Nos.243/2 admeasuring 2H and Gat No.243/5 admeasuring 2H 50 R at Karjgi, Taluka Akkalkot, District Solapur, which were covered by the same notification. By his order dated 10 November 2015, the Sub-Divisional Officer rejected that application on the ground that the decision in LAR No.18 of 2011 was restricted to that case alone. The SDO also held that the land in LAR No.10 of 2011 was from non-agricultural Group No.2, whereas the Petitioners' lands were from Group No.3.

(3.) The Petitioners challenge the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer on the ground that the award of the Lok Adalat in Sangappa's case was a deemed decree of the reference court under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act and accordingly, Section 28A of the Act could be invoked by other landholders, whose lands were covered by the same acquisition notification, such as the Petitioners herein, for re-determination of compensation in their own cases. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners relies on Vasudave vs. Commissioner and Secretary, Government, Revenue Department,2007 LEX(KAR) 855 , All Gujarat Jaher Bhandhkam Majoor Mandal vs. State of Gujarat,2014 LEX(GJH) 1228 , Shamshad Ali vs. State of UP,2020 SCCOnLineAll 641 , Komaramjeri Pedamunuswamy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh,2005 LEX(APLH) 111 and Rambhau Mahadeorao Tembhurkar vs. State of Maharashtra,2015 SCCOnLineBom 6331 in support of his case.