Oral Judgment [Per Ajit B. Kadethankar, J]:

1. Subject Matter : feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14th February 2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Gadhinglaj division, Gadhinglaj, Dist. Kolhapur in Case No.LA/28A/SR/30/10 (New No. LAR/Sect.28-A/SR/15/8), the Petitioner has preferred this writ petition. An application under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred as “the Act” for the sake of convenience],

filed by the Petitioner, has been turned down by the Respondent No.2 holding that the same was not supported with certified copies. Hence, the Petitioner is before this Court. Considering the nature of litigation, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition finally by consent of parties.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent taken up for final disposal.

3. Subject-matter Land :

These lands are owned by the Petitioner and are the subject-matter lands in the Writ Petition.

4. Petitioner’s case :

4.1. The subject-matter land was acquired by the Respondent No.2 for the purpose of Minor Irrigation tank project Kitwad. An award dated 31st March 1999 was passed granting compensation of Rs.77,700/- against the acquisition.

4.2. A landowner having land adjacent to the subject-matter lands, whose land was acquired in the same land acquisition proceedings and who was granted compensation vide the same Award dated 31st March 1999, preferred a Land Acquisition Reference No. 234 of 1999 before

the learned District Judge, Gadhinglaj. Upon hearing parties, the learned Reference Court vide its Judgment and Award dated 8th August 2008 answered the Land Acquisition Reference No.234 of 1999, and enhanced the compensation in the case.

4.3. The Petitioner too took recourse to Section 28A of the Act and filed such application on 1st November 2008. It is an undisputed fact that claimant could not file certified copy of the Judgment and Award dated 8th August 2008 passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference No. 234 of 1999. However, the claimant had filed true copy of Judgment and Award dated 8th August 2008 citing which the application under Section 28A of the Act was submitted.

4.4. Petitioner submits that on 14th February 2019, Respondent No.2 passed the impugned order whereby application filed by the Petitioner under Section 28A of the Act came to be rejected. Petitioner’s grievance is that application under Section 28A of the Act was turned down merely by observing that Applicant did not file certified copy of the Judgment and Award dated 8th August 2008 passed in LAR No. 234 of 1999.

Petitioner would submit that application under Section 28A of Act ought to have been decided by Respondent No.2 on its own merits, and that on a technical ground it ought not to have been rejected.

5. Respondents’ case:

5.1 Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, learned Assistant Government Pleader would support the impugned order dated 14th February 2019. She would further submit that Respondent No.2 was justified in expecting certified copy of Judgment and Award dated 8th August 2008 to be annexed to the application under Section 28A of Act. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that no illegality has been committed by Respondent No.2 in turning down the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 28A of the Act for want of certified copy of cited Judgment and Award dated 8th August 2008.

6. Consideration and Analysis :

6.1. Considering the nature of litigation, right of Claimant / Petitioner for enhancement of compensation, and the reasoning applied by Respondent No.2 in rejecting the application under Section 28A of the Act, we heard the parties for final disposal of the Writ Petition.

6.2. It is revealed from the record that the Application under Section 28-A of the Act was filed well within time i.e. within 3 months from 8th