IMPORTANT POINT
The acquiring body is barred from seeking a reference under Section 28-A(3) of the LA Act, ensuring legislative intent for equitable treatment of landowners.

ORDER :

1. Preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of present Petitions which challenge the Award passed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short “the LA Act”].

2. In order to appreciate the dispute involved in the present Petition, few facts which are necessary to be exposited are that the Petitioner-Corporation is the acquiring body for Bori Medium Project, District Solapur. The notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 of the LA Act were issued on 29th January 1998 and 6th June, 1999 and the Award under Section 11 was passed on 30th October 2000. The Award was challenged under Section 18 of LA Act by one Sidram Bamshetti Bharamshetti by filing LAR No. 183 of 2001. The LAR proceedings came to be disposed of on 14th December, 2019 in terms of the compromise pursis filed before the National Lok Adalat and in accordance with the terms of compromise the Award came to be passed on 14th December 2019.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed an application dated 15th February 2020 under Section 28-A of the LA Act for re-determination of the compensation on the basis of award passed in LAR No. 183 of 2001 pursuant to the compromise recorded by the National Lok Adalat, which came to be rejected by Respondent No. 3. As against this, Writ Petition No. 899 of 2021 was filed before this Court and by order dated 17th March 2021, this Court directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to re-determine the compensation. The Respondent No. 3 by order dated 29th August 2021 re-considered the application and allowed the same on the basis of award passed in LAR No. 183 of 2001 and also granted interest under various heads.

4. The present Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India seeks to challenge the Award dated 29th August, 2021 passed by the Respondent No 3 on various grounds such as absence of inquiry under Section 28-A(2) of the LA Act, non issuance of notice to the Petitioner, and the inclusion of administrative office expenses and establishment expenses in the Award.

5. Ms. Tulpule, learned Counsel for Respondent-Claimants has raised a preliminary objection in view of Section 28-A(3) of LA Act which provides for seeking a reference to the Court by the person who has not accepted the Award. She would submit that a Petition under Article 227 of Constitution is not maintainable to challenge the Award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 28-A of LA Act.

6. Ms. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that Section 28-A of LA Act does not contemplate re-determination of compensation based on Lok Adalat Award passed with the consent of parties and the application for enhanced compensation on the basis of Lok Adalat Award is not maintainable. She submits that the issue of maintainability cannot be decided by the Reference Court either under Section 18 or Section 28-A of LA Act. Pointing out Section 18 of the LA Act, she submits that the Reference will be limited to the classes of dispute specified therein and which does not include the issue of maintainability. She would further submit that Section 18(1) of the LA Act uses the expression “any person interested” which is defined under Section 3(b) of the LA Act and the acquiring body would not fall within the definition of person interested. She would further submit that the acquiring body is challenging the enhancement of compensation awarded and under Section 25 of the LA Act the Reference Court cannot award an amount lesser than the amount awarded by the Collector. She submits that it cannot be the intention of introduction of Section 28-A(3) of the LA Act to render redundant the provisions of Section 25 of the LA Act. She would further submit that under Section 50(2) of the LA Act, there is a bar on the acquiring body to demand reference under Section 18 of the LA Act which bar will also apply to Section 28-A(3). She would further submit that this Court had earlier taken a view in the case of V.I.D