Important Point: When an application under Section 18 is not entertained on the ground of limitation, the same not fructifying into any reference, then that would not tantamount to an effective application and consequently the rights of such applicant emanating from some other reference being answered to move an application under Section 28-A cannot be denied.

1. At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Deshmukh seeks deletion of the Respondent No.4. The said Respondent is accordingly allowed to be deleted at the risk of the Petitioner.

2. Rule. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

3. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 11-3-2014 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition No.11, Krishna Khore Project, Solapur. By the said order, the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the said Act), came to be rejected.

4. The Petitioner's land bearing Gat No.73 admeasuring 4 Hecters sitauted at Village Mirgavan, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur was notified for acquisition for the Sina – Kolegaon Irrigation Project. The notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued on 30-4-1998. The Award in respect of the said land was declared on 1-2-2002. By the said Award, the Petitioner was offered compensation for the acquired land. It seems that after the said Award was declared, several land owners whose lands were acquired for the said project filed Reference Applications in the office of the Respondent No.3. The said Land Reference were referred to the Reference Court i.e. the Learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Barshi under Section 18 of the said Act for re determination of the compensation. The Petitioner had also filed a reference under Section 18 of the said Act before the SLAO-11, Krishna Khore Project, Solapur on 29-2-2004. The SLAO after the receipt of the said application had referred the Reference to the court of the Learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Barshi. An objection was raised in respect of the Reference on the ground that the Petitioner has not paid the requisite court fees as required by Article 15 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, inspite of the notice being given to the Petitioner. The said notice was not complied with by the Petitioner resulting in the said Reference being dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for non payment of Court fees on 13-6-2006. Hence in so far as the said Reference is concerned, the proceedings did not fructify and in fact did not see the light of the day.

5. After the Reference being L.R.No.34 of 2006 was allowed by the Reference Court which Reference also concerned a land covered by the same notification and for the same acquisition, the Petitioner and 32 other land owners filed an Application under Section 28-A of the said Act for re determination of the compensation on the basis of the award passed in the said L.R.No.34 of 2006. The Petitioner filed the said application within limitation on 2972013. The said application was however rejected by the SLAO-11, Krishna Khore Project, Solapur by the impugned order dated 11-3-2014. The rejection of the application was on the ground that the Petitioner had filed an application for Reference under Section 18 and therefore as posited in Section 28-A (1), the Petitioner could not invoke the said provision. It is the said order dated 11-3-2014 which is taken exception to by way of the above Petition.

6. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Mr. Deshmukh would contend that since the Reference under Section 18 had not fructified and has been rejected on the ground of the court fees not being paid, the filing of the Reference cannot be held against the Petitioner and therefore the application filed under Section 28-A was maintainable. The Learned Counsel relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India Vs. Hansoli Devi & Ors., 2002(7) Supreme Court Cases 273 would contend that a person would be disentitled to apply under Section 28-A if there is an effective application meaning thereby that the Reference under Section 18 had been entertained and the reference was answered. The Learned Counsel would therefore contend that in the facts and circumstances of the present c