JUDGMENT :

Rohit B. Deo, J.

The question which falls for determination is, if the Court to which reference is made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act) refuses to enhance the compensation, and the compensation is enhanced by the High Court in appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Act, can a land owner covered by the same notification under Section 4 of the Act prefer an application under Section 28-A of the Act seeking enhanced compensation at par with the compensation allowed by the High Court in appeal preferred by the land owner.

2. The backdrop in which the question formulated arises is as set out infra.

2.1 Late Mr. Shankarrao Pandoji Shendge was the owner of field Survey 19/1, admeasuring 4.38 hectares situated at village Ansing, Taluka Umarkhed, District Yavatmal. Late Mr. Bhagwan Pandoji Shendge was the owner of field Survey 19/2, 26/3 and 44/2 admeasuring 9.51 hectares and petitioner 1(i) Mr. Nandeorao Shankarrao Shendge was the owner of field Survey 26/2 admeasuring 1.96 hectares and field Survey 44/1 admeasuring 3.05 hectares situated at Mouza – Ansing.

2.2 Mr. Shankarrao Pandoji Shendge died intestate on 12.02.1990 and petitioners 1(i) to 1(iii) are his legal heirs. Mr. Bhagwan Pandoji Shendge also died intestate on 13.08.2016 and petitioners 2(i) to 2(iv) are his legal heirs.

2.3 The land described supra (subject land) was proposed to be acquired for the Upper Painganga Project and the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the Government Gazette on 09.12.1976. Section 6 notification was published on 14.04.1977 and the proceedings culminated in Award dated 16.09.1978 where-under compensation at the rate of Rs.2800/- per acre was granted for dry crop land. The subject land was dry crop land.

2.4 The owners of the subject land did not seek reference under Section 18 of the Act. Petitioners state that due to illiteracy and the disadvantages and disabilities from which persons residing in remote rural areas suffer, reference was not sought.

2.5 One Mr. Shankarrao Mhaske whose land was also acquired by the same notification issued under Section 4 of the Act however, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The reference L.A.C. 2012/1979 was dismissed by the Reference Court on 15.09.1983.

2.6 Mr. Shankarrao Mhaske assailed the judgment of the Reference Court in First Appeal 32/1985 which was decided by the High Court on 04.11.1996. The High Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.2800/- per acre for dry crop land to Rs.5000/- per acre. The High Court further enhanced the compensation for irrigated land to Rs.20,000/- per hectare.

2.7 In the interregnum, the Act was amended w.e.f. 24.09.1984 and Section 28-A was introduced on the statute book. The owners of the subject land preferred application under Section 28-A of the Act on 25.11.1996 seeking enhanced compensation at par with the compensation enhanced by the High Court in First Appeal 32/1985. Petitioners state that since the application dated 25.11.1996 was not acted upon, the owners of the subject land and other similarly situated land owners submitted several representations inter alia representations dated 30.12.2015, 14.03.2016, 03.04.2017 and 17.04.2017. The representations did not evoke any response and the petitioners approached the High Court in Writ Petition 8463/2018 which disposed of the writ petition by directing the first respondent to decide the pending applications preferred under Section 28-A of the Act within stipulated period.

2.8 Petitioners state that the owners of the subject land and other similarly situated land owners appeared before the first respondent on 11.03.2019 and were asked to appear by the first respondent before the second respondent. Accordingly, the owners of the subject land and others attended the office of the second respondent on 14.06.2019 and filed common submission on record.

2.9 The second respondent passed common order dated 14.06.2019 rejecting the applications preferred under Section 2