1. Rule was issued in these Writ Petitions on 18th June, 2009. Since a very shot controversy is involved, the Petitions are taken up for final hearing forthwith.

BRIEF RESUME OF THE FACTS :

2. The lands of the Petitioners situate at village Sanjegaon, Tal. Igatpuri, Dist. Nashik were acquired for Mukane Dam Project. The Award was passed on 14.12.1995. Certain other claimants whose lands were also covered by the same Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act, 1894, filed L.R. No. 314 of 1999 and other connected land acquisition References and all those References were allowed by the learned Second Adhoc Additional District Judge, Nashik by Judgment and Order dated 03.04.2006. The Petitioners through their Advocate Shri A.M. Qureshi applied for certified copy of the said Judgment and Order on 17.05.2006. The date given to the Applicant for taking delivery of the copy was 29.05.2006. The copy was actually ready on 29.05.2006 but was delivered on 3rd June, 2006. It is an admitted position that the Application for redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the Award of the Court under Section 28(A) was filed on 18th July, 2006.

3. By the impugned Order dated 22.09.2008, SLAO No.I, Nashik who was exercising powers of the Collector under the LA Act, 1894, rejected the Applications on the ground that the Applications filed were delayed by four days. Aggrieved by this order, all these Writ Petitions have been filed.

4. Affidavit-in-Reply has been filed by the Dy. Collector and SLAO, Scarcity No.1, Dist. Nashik in W.P. No. 2140 of 2009 and a photo copy of the certified copy of the Judgment and Order dated 03.04.2006 is annexed. Reliance has been placed on the two Judgments of the Supreme Court to which reference would be made.

SUBMISSIONS OF ADVOCATES :

5. Mr. Sonawane submitted that the entire period between 17.05.2006 to 03.06.2006 will have to he excluded and excluding the period, the Applications will have to be held to be within limitation. It is alternatively submitted that even after the certified copy was ready for delivery on 29.05.2006, merely because the Advocate collected the certified copy belatedly on 3rd June, 2006, for this default of Advocate, persons who are poor agriculturists like the Petitioners should not be made to suffer. He submitted that the earlier Judgments of the Supreme Court interpreted Section 18 of the Act, whereas the present case falls under Section 28A of the Act and hence, according to Mr. Sonawane, the Judgments of the Supreme Court are clearly distinguishable.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Patne, learned AGP appearing for the Respondents submitted that the Collector is not a Court under the scheme of the Act and since Collector is not a court, there is no power to condone the delay. He submitted that since the date of taking delivery of the certified copy was communicated to be 29.05.2006 and since copy was ready on that date only the period actually required for preparation of the certified copy can be excluded. He submitted that even if a very lenient view is taken for calculating the time required for obtaining certified copy, the Applications were delayed by at least three days and that delay cannot be condoned.

RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS:

7. It is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of Section 28(A) of the LA Act, 1894 which reads thus :

[28A. (1) where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis o