JUDGMENT :

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses B and C as under :-

"B. By a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction order dt.17.12.2019 passed by the respondent No.3 thereby rejecting application under section 28-A under Land Acquisition Act may kindly be quashed and set aside.

C. By a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, application filed by the Petitioner under Section 28-A under Land Acquisition Act may kindly be allowed."

3. The Petitioner has contended that she is the owner and possessor of land Survey No./Gat No.227/5 and 227/9, admeasuring 11 R situated at village Sakol, Tal.Shirur Anantpal, Dist.Latur. The said land was acquired for the Sakol Medium Project on 09.12.1996. A notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on 26.06.1999. The award came to be delivered on 21.12.2001 quantifying the compensation amount of Rs. 610 Per R for the acquired land. The Petitioner has not filed a reference petition u/s 18. Other co-claimants filed LAR No.115/2006 and by judgment dated 30.01.2012, the LAR Court partly allowed the reference and enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,754/- per R for the Dry land and Rs.2,631/- per R for the irrigated land. The Petitioner claims to have gathered knowledge of the judgment dated 30.01.2012, on 21.09.2019. It is stated that the Petitioner immediately applied for a certified copy of the said judgment. The Petitioner preferred an application u/s 28-A on 29.11.2019. By the impugned order dated 17.12.2019, the application was rejected solely on the ground of delay.

4. The Petitioner has relied upon an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 27.10.2017 in SLP (Civil) 14700/2015 and Civil Appeal No. 17323/2017 (Karam Chand (dead) by LR's and Another Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and another) to support her contention that delay in filing an application u/s 28-A can be condoned.

5. This matter was heard on 03.07.2023 and 17.07.2023. On 18.07.2023, we passed an order, whose relevant paragraph Nos. 2 to 4 are as under :-

"2. This Court at the Nagpur Bench has delivered orders in Sanjay Sudam Rathod Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2022 DGLS (Bom.) 3456, and Dnyandeo Yashwant Mante Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No.6214 of 2022 decided on 23.11.2022), placing reliance on Karam Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.14700/2015). However, the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bir Wati and others Vs. Union of India and others, 2017(16) SCC 548, was not cited.

3. We are of the view that in this matter, it would be appropriate to appoint Shri Vijay Sapkal, the learned Senior Advocate, as Amicus Curiae. Shri Sapkal has graciously agreed to assist the Court.

4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner would prepare a complete compilation of the writ petition paper book, as well as the case law and tender the same to Shri Sapkal."

6. The learned Sr.Advocate Mr.Sapkal has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the matter of Tota Ram Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(1997) 6 SCC 280]. By the said judgment, it has been concluded as under :-

"1. This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, made on November 19, 1996 in Writ Petition No. 12843/94.

2. Admittedly, on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for shorts the "Act"), the reference Court passed its award and decree on May 18, 1990. The petitioner filed an application under section 28-A of the Act on July 22, 1992 stating that he came to know on 19th July, 1992 that in another reference compensation for the lands had been enhanced rates as he had filed application under proviso to section 28-A reads as under :

"28-A Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court

(1) Whether