(Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Krishna Murari, JJ.)
Narayan S/o Dhondu Sarode (D) Through Lrs. and Others __ Appellant(s);
v.
Collector, Jalgaon and Another ____________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. 1632 of 2011, decided on November 27, 2019
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The Civil Appeal arises out of the order dated 14.02.2007 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad.
2. The appellant lost his land in the impugned acquisition. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter called “SLAO”) awarded compensation of Rs. 31,500/- per hectare by his Award dated 08.05.1984. The appellants did not file a reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called “the Act”) for claiming higher compensation. However, various other land owners who had lost lands under the same notification, approached the Reference Court under section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court by order dated 7.4.1986 enhanced compensation to Rs. 60,000/- and in some cases, Rs. 90,000/- per hectare depending upon the quality of the land.
3. Based on the Award dated 07.04.1986 passed by the Reference Court, the appellants herein, who had not approached the Reference Court, filed an application under section 28A of the Act seeking similar compensation. The application came to be dismissed by the SLAO by order dated 18.08.2004 on the ground that there was delay in filing this application. The Collector by order dated 26.09.2005 informed the SLAO that the appellant’s application cannot be reviewed again.
4. It is relevant to note that the limitation prescribed for filing application under Section 28 A of the Act is 90 days. The 90th day fell on 6th July, 1986 which happened to be a Sunday. The application under Section 28A came to be filed by the appellants herein on 8.7.1986, instead of 7.7.1986. Hence, there was a delay of one day in filing the application.
5. The High Court in the impugned judgment summarily dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants. It is held that the SLAO as well as the Collector were justified in rejecting the application under Section 28A in view of the delay of one day, inasmuch as, there is no provision for condoning such delay.
6. It is pertinent to note that this Court in the case of Bir Wati v. Union of India [(2017) 16 SCC 548] had by exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, directed the concerned Authority to accept the application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. This is accounting for the fact that the persons hailing from agricultural background may be unaware of the legal and procedural requirements under the Act.
7. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we exercise our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and condone the delay/lapse of one day on the part of the appellants in filing the application inasmuch as the appellant would not get the adequate compensation as awarded in similar matters.
8. Therefore, Collector/concerned appropriate officer is directed to accept the application filed by the appellants under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act and determine the appropriate compensation in accordance with law.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
———
