IMPORTANT POINT
A party who has preferred a Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and has secured an order thereunder, cannot thereafter file an Application under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for re-determination of compensation.

JUDGMENT

B.P. Colabawalla, J.—Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioners originally sought a direction that the Respondent Authorities pass an Award under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the 1894 Act”) as per their application dated 3rd May 2021. However, before the above Petition was filed, Respondent No. 2 (SLAO) issued a letter/order dated 20th January 2022 rejecting the Application filed by the Petitioners under Section 28A of the 1894 Act. Therefore, by virtue of an amendment allowed by this Court on 21st December 2022, a prayer was added to quash and set aside the impugned letter/order dated 20th January 2022 issued by Respondent No. 2 rejecting the Section 28A Application filed by the Petitioners.

3. The short question that arises in the present Petition is whether the Petitioners, having availed of the opportunity to file a Reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, and having secured an order on such Reference, can thereafter ask for re-determination of compensation under Section 28A of the 1894 Act on the basis of an order passed in an appeal arising from some other Land Reference filed by some other landowners in respect of their land covered under a common notification issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.

4. The brief facts that give rise to the present Petition are this: The Petitioners’ land [along with others land parcels] was notified for acquisition vide a notification issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act dated 3rd October, 1991. The total land of the Petitioners that was to be acquired was totaling 3.66 Hectares situated at the Gat No. 67/3B/2/1 at village Pratapnagar, Taluka-North Solapur, District-Solapur [for short “the said land”]. This acquisition was for the purposes of the Minor Water Percolation Tank Irrigation Project at Pratapnagar, Solapur [for short the “said Project”]. To take this acquisition forward, a Section 6 declaration was also published on 13th August 1992 and a common Award was also declared on 12th September 1994.

5. Since the Petitioners were not satisfied with the compensation determined under the said common Award, a Reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act was filed by the Petitioners, namely, Land Acquisition Reference No. 35 of 1995. The learned District Court, Solapur, by judgment and order dated 31st December 2001, partly allowed the said Land Reference and declared that the Applicants in Land Acquisition Reference No. 35 of 1995 are entitled to a sum of Rs. 45,027.50/- towards land value, the sum of Rs. 13,508.25/- towards 30% solatium and the sum of Rs. 15,309.18/- towards special component at 12% per annum for 34 months, grossly amounting to the sum of Rs. 73,844.93/-.

6. Apart from the Land Acquisition Reference filed by the Petitioners, two other landowners under the same common Award also filed Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 34 of 1995 and 37 of 1995. In those Land References, the District Court, Solapur, by judgment and order dated 13th February 2004, granted compensation of Rs. 2,65,130/- per hectare for their acquired land on the basis that the same had N.A. potentiality.

7. According to the Petitioners, nearly eleven affected landholders whose lands were situated next to one another, and acquired under the said common Award, secured an order dated 7th April 2011 from the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur, under Section 28A(3) of the 1894 Act, again fixing Rs. 2,65,130/- per hectare as the market value for their acquired land. This order was passed on the basis of the judgment and order passed in LAR No. 34 of 1995 and LAR No. 37 of 1995 referred to earlier.

8. After all this, the Petitioners decided to challenge the order dated 31st December 2001 passed in the Land Reference filed by them, being LAR No. 35 of 1995. The Petitioners therefore filed First Appeal (ST) No. 26755 of 2011 in this Court.