JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. In this writ petition, the application filed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1984”) is rejected. The only ground raised in the petition is that without issuing notice and granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the application was rejected.

4. I have perused the impugned order. It is clear that without issuing notice or without granting any hearing to the petitioners the application under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 came to be rejected.

5. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Zama vs. State of Mah., reported in 2015 (3) Mh.L.J. 256 has held thus :

“2. We are inclined to dispose of present writ petition, as after hearing and after going through the documents and the material place on record, we have also noticed that no opportunity of hearing and or personal hearing, as contemplated under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was given to the petitioners to determine the enhanced amount of compensation on the basis of the Award passed. Section 28-A contemplates and entitles the owner or person concerned to apply for an enhancement of compensation. The concerned authority is, therefore, required to consider the same in accordance with law which includes fair and equal opportunity to all the persons affected. Otherwise also, it is necessary as for effective determination/inquiry means fair opportunity, so that the concerned person/s can place all relevant materials in support their claim of enhancement of compensation.

3. The issue with regard to the enhanced claim of compensation, just cannot be decided in such a fashion without giving fair opportunity to the petitioners-owners. Therefore, without expressing anything on merit, at this stage, as no opportunity was given to the petitioner which is a mandate of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, we are inclined to quash and set aside the impugned order by keeping all points open and direct the concerned respondents to reconsider the case/application filed by the petitioners by giving all opportunities as contemplated and pass the order as early as possible preferably within three months. ....”

6. Thus, it is evident that without granting an opportunity of hearing and by following the principles of natural justice, the application under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 cannot be decided. As such, the impugned order suffers from non-compliance of the principles of natural justice.

7. Even on merit the reason given by the respondent No.2 for rejection of the application that while accepting the compensation amount the land owner gave an affidavit that he/she will not claim enhanced compensation, the said ground is not tenable in the eyes of law in view of the Full Bench judgment in the case of Baliram vs. State of Mah., reported in 2010 (5) Mh.L.J. 465 and the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Motiram vs. State of Mah., reported in 2017 (4) Mh.L.J. 627.

8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case ofMoriram (supra) has held thus :

“7. In the judgment of the Full Bench in Baliram Ramaji Ghate [supra], certain lands that were covered under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 were subsequently acquired under the provisions of the said Act. While making payment of compensation under the Award, an undertaking was obtained from the erstwhile owner that he would not seek enhanced compensation under the said Act. On account of disagreement on the question as to the binding effect of such undertaking, it was held in paragraph 12 of the said judgment as under:-

"12. ..................................................................... ..… ...........the Government having chosen to acquire the land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and having applied the said law fo