SANJAY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek enhancement in the amount of compensation as awarded in Land Acquisition Case No. 11/2005 which is higher than what has been awarded to them in proceedings under Sec. 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act of 1894 ").

(2.) The lands of the petitioners are located at Village - Waigaul, Taluka - Manora, District - Washim. Notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act of 1894 was published in the Government Gazette on 30/4/1998.

(3.) Shri A.S. Mehadia, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award on 13/2/2013 failed to take into consideration the fact that in LAC No. 140/2004, compensation @ Rs.89,500.00 per acre had been granted. Ignoring that adjudication, compensation @ Rs.60,000.00 per acre came to be awarded. It was his submission that the order passed in LAC No. 26/2006 was challenged by the acquiring body by preferring First Appeal No. 675/2014. One of the land owners filed Cross-Objection No. 7/2022 wherein prayer for enhancing the amount of compensation was made. The said proceedings were decided on 14/1/2022. While the Appeal preferred by the acquiring body was dismissed, the cross-objection was partly allowed and compensation @ Rs.89,500.00 per acre came to be granted. In view of the provisions of Sec. 28A(1) of the Act of 1894, the petitioners were entitled to similar amount of enhanced compensation. Despite making representation to that effect, no cognizance of the same was taken. It was urged by relying upon the decision in Babua Ram And Others Vs. State of U.P. And Another [(1995) 2 SCC 689] that there could not be any disparity in the amount of compensation payable for the lands acquired under the same notification. It was then submitted that though the Special Land Acquisition Officer noted that no Appeal was preferred against the award passed in LAC No. 26/2006, it was a fact that such appeal being First Appeal No. 675/2014 came to be filed and the same was decided by enhancing the amount of compensation. The petitioners were therefore entitled to enhanced compensation. The learned Counsel also referred to the decisions in State of Maharashtra Vs. Manakchand Pyarmal And Others [(1996) 1 SCC 297] and in Bharatsing s/o Gulabsingh Jakhad And Others Vs. State of Maharashtra And Others [(2018) 11 SCC 92] to urge that as challenge to the award passed in LAC No. 26/2006 was pending, the proceedings under Sec. 28A(1) of the Act of 1894 ought not to have been finally decided. It was thus prayed that the petitioners be granted enhanced compensation. In the alternate, the representation made on 14/8/2016 be directed to be decided.