ANJEBHAU S O ANNA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision applications raise a short point as to whether persons who are the owners of the property covered by two different notifications of the even date published in the same Gazette would be entitled for the benefit under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Since both revision applications raise common questions of fact and law, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) TWO notifications under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 bearing numbers LAQ-SR-2/80 and LAQ-SR-4/80; were published wherein an award was passed in LAQ-SR-4/80; whereas there was reference under section 18 only in respect of the award of the Collector under section 11 in furtherance of Notification No. LAQ-SR-2/80, it appears that there was no such reference made in LAQ-SR-4/80. Persons whose lands were covered by the Notification No. LAQ-SR-4/80 filed an application purporting to be under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Special Land Acquisition Officer praying for the compensation enhanced equal to the compensation awarded in the reference under section 18 arising out of notification number LAQ-SR-2/80. These applications were rejected by the Special Land Acquisition Officer vide his order dated 16th December, 1991. Both these writ petitions challenge these orders.

(3.) SMT. M. A. Kulkarni, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners, submitted that the words "covered by the same notification" will have to be interpreted liberally keeping in mind the purpose of insertion of section 28-A and all the notifications which are issued and published on the same day will have to be treated as the same notifications. Mrs. Kulkarni further pointed out that both the notifications are in respect of lands in Mangrul Village in Majalgaon Taluka of Beed District and when the benefit can be given to the persons covered by one notification, it should not be denied to the persons covered by another notification of even date. Shri H. A. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State defended the orders of the Land Acquisition Officer. Since there is no dispute about the facts and admittedly award was passed in respect of notification number LAQ-SR-4/80 and the applicant under section 28-A are covered by notification No. LAQ-SR-4/80, the legal submission made by Mrs. Kulkarni will have only to be considered.