Dnyandeo S/O Atmaram Kadam And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mumbai And Another
1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.4208 OF 2023
1. Dnyandeo S/o Atmaram Kadam, Aged about 45 years, Occupation : Agriculturist,
2. Manikrao Tukaram Shingane Aged about 56 years, Occupation : Agriculturist,
3. Madhukar Tukaram Shingane (Since deceased) through L.R.
Manikrao Tukaram Shingane Aged about 56 years, Occupation : Agriculturist,
4. Gangaram Ananda Kadam (Dead) through his Legal Heir :
Bhagwan Kadam Aged about 42 years, Occupation : Agriculturist
5. Bhika Pandu Shingane (Dead) through his Legal Heir :
Digambar Bhikaji Shingane Aged about 65 years, Occupation : Agriculturist
6. Keshav S/o Ganpat Kadam (Dead) through his Legal Heir :
Gulabrao Keshav Kadam Aged about 48 years, Occupation : Agriculturist
7. Atmaram Kondiba Kadam (Dead) through his Legal Heir :
Smt Saraswati Atmaram Kadam Aged about 51 years, Occupation : Agriculturist
8. Bhimrao Gangaram Kadam (Dead) through his Legal Heir :
Kaushalyabai Bhimrao Kadam
2/4 Aged about 49 years, Occupation : Agriculturist
9. Godavari Khushalrao Kadam Aged about 53 years, Occupation : Agriculturist,
10. Bhagwan Ganpat Kharde Aged about 72 years, Occupation : Agriculturist,
11. Chandrabhaga Bhagwan Kharde (Dead) Through her Legal Heir, Dinkar Bhagwan Kharde Aged about 48 years, Occupation : Agriculturist, All R/o Garkhed, Tq. Deulgaon Raja District - Buldhana ... Petitioners -vs1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary.
Irrigation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032
2. The Sub Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Sindkhed Raja, Tq. Sindkhed Raja, District - Buldhana ... Respondents Shri R. N. Ghuge, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri A. S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for respondents. CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : JULY 07, 2023 Oral Judgment : (Per : A. S. Chandurkar, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The agricultural lands of the petitioners were acquired for
3/4 the Khadakpurna Project pursuant to the LAC No.26/1990-1991. In reference arising out of Darkhast No.09/2002 an award dated 30/08/2013 came to be passed. The petitioners sought benefit of enhanced compensation by making an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the said Act). Those applications were made on 25/02/2014 and the same have been rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground of delay. 2.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in Civil Appeal No.17323/2017 (Karam Chand (Dead) By LRs and anr. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.) by order dated 27/10/2017 the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to condone the delay in seeking the determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the said Act subject to declining the benefit of interest for the period of delay. It is thus urged that similar course can be followed by denying the benefit of interest for the period of about three months in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to the decision in Writ Petition No.5836/2017 (Mohd. Shakir Mohd. Jafar vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.) decided on 13/11/2019 wherein after referring to the aforesaid decision in Karam Chand (supra), liberty was granted to the claimant to seek condonation of delay by moving an application under Section 28-A of the said Act.
4/4 3.
Though the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents supported the impugned order, we find that the course followed in Karam Chand (supra) can be adopted in the present case by permitting the petitioner to move an application for condonation of delay. Such course was followed in Mohd. Shakir Mohd. Jafar (supra). 4.
Hence for aforesaid reasons, the following order is passed : (i) The petitioners shall be at liberty to file an application for condonation of delay and the Competent Authority shall pass appropriate order on the same in accordance with law after hearing the petitioners.
(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the respondent No.2Special Land Acquisition Officer on 18/07/2023 with appropriate application and after hearing the petitioners, the application shall be decided in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter.
(iii) In case the delay is condoned, the petitioners would not be entitled for interest for the period of delay from 01/12/2013 to 25/02/2014. Needless to state that if the delay is not condoned, the petitioners are at liberty to have legal recourse in that regard.
Rule is disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
(Mrs Vrushali V. Joshi, J.) (A. S. Chandurkar, J.) Asmita