DATE: 23/12/2025
COURT: High Court of Bombay
BENCH: Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice
Ajit B. Kadethankar
FACTS:
The petitioner's lands, Gut No. 1274 (1
Hectare 29 R) and Gut No. 1277 (1 Hectare 78 R) in Village Kalkundri, Taluka
Chandgad, District Kolhapur, were acquired by the authorities for the Minor
Irrigation Tank Project at Kitwad. An initial award dated March 31, 1999,
granted compensation of Rs. 77,700/-. An adjacent landowner, whose land was
acquired under the same proceedings and award, filed a Land Acquisition
Reference No. 234 of 1999, resulting in enhanced compensation via a judgment
and award dated August 8, 2008, by the District Judge, Gadhinglaj.
Aggrieved by the initial compensation, the
petitioner filed an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, on November 1, 2008, seeking re-determination based on the enhanced award
in the reference case. However, the petitioner submitted a true copy rather
than a certified copy of the August 8, 2008, judgment. The Sub Divisional
Officer, Gadhinglaj, rejected this application on February 14, 2019, citing the
absence of a certified copy and concerns over ascertaining the time for
obtaining it for limitation purposes, leading the petitioner to file a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court,
Kolhapur Bench.
ISSUES:
The primary issues were whether the rejection
of the petitioner's application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, was justified solely on the technical ground of not submitting a
certified copy of the relied-upon judgment and award dated August 8, 2008, and
whether the application was barred by limitation, despite being filed within
three months of the reference court's decision.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside
the Sub Divisional Officer's order dated February 14, 2019, rejecting the
petitioner's Section 28A application. The matter was remitted back to the
authority for decision on merits in light of the August 8, 2008, judgment,
without rejecting it on grounds of limitation or lack of certified copy, to be
decided within 16 weeks, with the petitioner allowed to adduce supporting
evidence.
The court emphasized that the petitioner's
application under Section 28A was filed on November 1, 2008, well within the
three-month limitation period from the August 8, 2008, reference court
judgment, even without excluding time for obtaining a certified copy. Rejecting
it merely for submitting a true copy instead of a certified one reflected an
overly technical approach by the authority, which failed to consider the timely
filing and the substantive merits. The court noted that the purpose of
requiring certified copies is primarily for computing limitation in appeals or
references, not to frustrate the object of Section 28A, which is a beneficent
provision aimed at ensuring equality in compensation for similarly situated
landowners. Drawing from the Supreme Court's observations in Banwari v. Haryana
State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Limited (AIR 2025 SC 165), the
court highlighted that Section 28A seeks to benefit inarticulate and poor
individuals unable to pursue references under Section 18, and its
interpretation should advance relief rather than curtail it on procedural
grounds.
Furthermore, the court underscored the
petitioner's status as a farmer who lost his sole livelihood through compulsory
acquisition for public purpose, noting that similarly affected landowners had
received enhanced compensation under identical facts. It criticized the state
machinery for treating such claims adversarially and urged a liberal approach,
as farmers are often unaware of legal procedures and rights. The procedure
should facilitate adjudication of the core object, fair compensation rather
than defeat it on hyper-technicalities. The court opined that authorities
should proactively inform land-losers of their rights to enhancement, viewing
the state as a model for adequate compensation rather than blaming traumatized
individuals for procedural lapses. In exercising powers under Article 226, the
court thus intervened to prevent injustice and ensure the application was
adjudicated on merits.
ANALYSIS:
This case exemplifies the judiciary's
commitment to substantive justice over procedural rigidity in land acquisition
matters, particularly for vulnerable farmers affected by compulsory
acquisition. The Bombay High Court's decision to quash the Sub Divisional
Officer's rejection of the Section 28A application underscores that technical
deficiencies, such as submitting a true copy instead of a certified copy of the
reference judgment should not bar claims when the application is timely filed
and the underlying merit seeks equality in compensation. By remitting the
matter for fresh consideration on merits, the court reinforces Section 28A of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as a beneficent provision designed to protect
inarticulate landowners who miss initial references under Section 18, ensuring
they benefit from enhanced awards granted to similarly situated parties.
The judgment highlights a broader critique
of adversarial approaches by state authorities in compensation disputes,
advocating for a liberal and proactive stance toward farmers who often lack
awareness of legal nuances and face livelihood loss. Drawing on principles from
Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the remedial intent of Section 28A, the
court prioritizes the legislation's objective of removing inequality in
compensation payments. This ruling serves as a reminder that procedural
requirements, like certified copies primarily for limitation computation, must
facilitate rather than frustrate access to fair redress, promoting equitable
treatment in public project acquisitions and urging authorities to guide rather
than obstruct affected individuals.
info@adhwaitha.com