JUDGMENT - KANADE V.M., J.:-Both these petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment as the point raised in this petitions is identical.

2. By these petitions, petitioners are challenging the order passed by the respondent No. 1-Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nashik who had dismissed the application filed by the petitioners in determination of the amount of compensation. The said application which is filed under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act was rejected solely on the ground that the said application was not filed within limitation.

FACTS :

3. By a Award dated 22-9-1990, respondent No. 1-Special Land Acquisition Officer held that the petitioner and other claimants were entitled to Rs. 100/- per sq. meter by way of compensation in lieu of their lands which were acquired form Village Takli. Petitioner and other claimants filed a reference under section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of the compensation and claimed the rate of Rs. 300/- per sq. meter.

4. The Joint District Judge by his judgment and Award dated 16-7-1999 held that they were entitled to the enhanced rate and, accordingly the rate was enhanced to Rs. 134/- to Rs. 201/- depending upon the facts of each case. The petitioners application, however, was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The petitioner immediately filed an application on 12-9-1999 i.e. within two months from the date of the said judgment and Award under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act requesting respondent No. 1 to redetermine the amount of compensation in the light of the decision of the Joint District Court dated 16-7-1999. A specific reference was made in the said application that the earlier land reference under section 18 was dismissed only on the ground of limitation. Respondent No. 1, however, by his order dated 6-6-2000 rejected the application under section 28-A on the ground that it was not filed within limitation.

5. Petitioner filed writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 3776 of 2000 and by an order dated 7-8-2000, this Court was pleased to set aside the order passed by the respondent No. 1 and directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to decide the application under section 28-A on merits within a period of eights weeks.

6. Inspite of specific directions being given by this Court, respondent No. 1-Special Land Acquisition Officer vide order dated 8-11-2000 again dismissed the application on the ground that the application under section 28-A was not maintainable as the petitioner had filed reference under section 18 of the Act and the same was dismissed. Petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

SUBMISSIONS :

7. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had committed an error of law which is apparent on the face of record by dismissing the application under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act and had, in fact, violated an order passed by this Court whereby direction was given to decide the application on merits. It is further submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had erred in holding that the reference filed by the petitioner under section 18 having been dismissed, the petitioners application under section 28- A was not maintainable. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (Union of India and another v. Hansoli Devi and others)1, reported in 2002(7) S.C.C. 273, where the Apex Court has held that if an application seeking reference under section 18 is dismissed on the ground of delay, it falls within the expression "not made an application" within the meaning of section 28-A. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

8. The Special Land Acquisition Officer obviously has committ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document