PARASMAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 28 -2 -1996 passed by the respondent No.2 refusing to condone the delay in filing an application for seeking enhanced compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as the said Act for short). On 24 -9 -1979, an award was passed under Section 9 of the said Act, acquiring the lands of the petitioner. The petitioner had thereafter sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to him. The reference proceedings were decided on 17 -2 -1988. Some other land owners, whose lands were also acquired by the same notification by which the land of the petitioner was acquired, had preferred first appeals under Section 54 of the said Act before this Court. The aforesaid first appeals were decided on 22 -3 -1993 and the compensation as awarded in the reference proceedings was enhanced. On that basis, the present petitioner moved an application on 19 -12 -1995 seeking benefit of grant of enhanced compensation in view of the provisions of Section 28A of the said Act. As the aforesaid application was not preferred within stipulated period of 3 months, the same was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. By the impugned order, the respondent No.2 refused to condone the delay on the ground that the cause as shown was not sufficient. It is this order which is challenged in the present writ petition.

(2.) NONE has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, we have gone through the contents of the writ petition and the documents filed along with it. According to the petitioner, the application for enhancement of compensation under Section 28A of the said Act had been moved immediately after getting knowledge about the decision of the first appeal under Section 54 of the said Act. It is the case of the petitioner that after applying for the certified copies, the application under Section 28 -A had been immediately moved. According to the petitioner, the delay as caused had been sufficiently explained and the respondent No.2 ought to have condoned the same.

(3.) A perusal of the provisions of Section 28A of the said Act reveals that the redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court can be sought by making a written application to the Collector within a period of three months from the date of award of the Court. By the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 28A of the Act, only the period that is required for obtaining the copy of the award is excluded. In PopatGowardhan (supra), it has been held by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court relying upon its earlier judgment that an application under Section 28A of the said Act has to be filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 28A of the said Act. As the Land Acquisition Officer was not a Court, the provisions of the Limitation Act would not apply. It was thus, held that the question of limitation for filing an application under Section 28A of the said Act commencing from the date of knowledge of the Courts award would not arise at all. Such application was required to be made within a period of three months from the date of award of the Court.