A dismissal of a compensation claim on technical grounds does not preclude a subsequent application for re-determination under Section 28-A, provided the earlier claim was not adjudicated on merits.

JUDGMENT :

NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.

1. By consent of both the sides, heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The Petitioner was the owner of land admeasuring 1 Hectare 1 R bearing Survey No.148/2, situated at Village – Sastur, Taluka – Omerga, District – Osmanabad (Now Dharashiv). The said land of the Petitioner came to be acquired for rehabilitation of Village – Sastur. The Respondent No.2 – Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) passed an Award on 22/10/1996 under Section 11 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the L. A. Act’) and granted the rate of Rs.24,000/- Per Hectare for the land of the Petitioner. Being not satisfied with the amount of compensation granted by Respondent No.2, the Petitioner preferred a Land Acquisition Reference (L.A.R.) No.595/2005 (Old L.A.R No.255/2000), which was referred to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Reference Court’) for compensation @ Rs.20,000/- Per R. The Reference came to be rejected by the learned Reference Court vide Judgment and Order dated 06/01/2009.

3. The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the above referred Judgment and Order passed by the learned Reference Court, preferred the Civil Revision Application (Stamp) No.26654/2011 with Civil Application No.12357/2011 for condonation of Delay before this Court. This Court by order dated 08/12/2011 dismissed the Application for condonation of delay in preferring the Civil Revision Application. The Petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 31891/2019, which also came to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

4. In the same Land Acquisition Proceedings, the land belonging to one Kusumbai Vishambar Yadav resident of the same Village i.e. Sastur, admeasuring 1 Hectare 66 R. bearing Survey No.128 also came to be acquired. The said Co-villager preferred Land Acquisition Reference No.600/2005 (Old L.A.R. No.262/2000) before the learned Reference Court. The Reference was allowed by the Judgment and Order dated 05/12/2014 and the compensation came to be enhanced in favour of the said Co-villager @ Rs.20/- per sq. ft. The Petitioner, on the basis of the said Award enhancing the compensation in favour of the said Co-villager, filed an Application under Section 28-A of the L. A. Act before Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1, by order dated 28/12/2018, rejected the Application filed by the Petitioner on the ground that, the Petitioner had preferred the Reference Application under Section 18 of the L. A. Act. Being aggrieved by the decision of Respondent No.1, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that, the Reference Application under Section 18 of the L. A. Act, which was preferred by the Petitioner, was not dismissed on merits. The Civil Revision Application and the S.L.P. were dismissed on the ground of delay. The order of the learned Reference Court merged in the order of this Court and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and therefore, the dismissal of the Reference Application was on technical ground. There is no bar under the L. A. Act to file the Application under Section 28-A of the L. A. Act after Section 18 Reference was preferred. Though the Petitione