IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4475 OF 2023 Nitin Bharat Savale Datta Nagar, Taluka Indapur, District – Pune … Petitioner Versus

1. State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue.

2. The District Collector, Solapur.

3. Smt. Manisha Avahale, Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 2-cum-

Additional Collector, Solapur.

4. Union of India, Through its Divisional Manager, Central Railway, Solapur. … Respondents Mr. Sujeet Bugade, for the Petitioners.

Mr. Prashant P. More, Addl. GP for the Respondents - State.

_______________________

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &

ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 22 NOVEMBER 2024 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 27 FEBRUARY 2025 _______________________

JUDGMENT (Per Advait M. Sethna, J.) :

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The respondents waive service.

By consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following substantive prayers / reliefs, which read thus:-

“(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction in terms of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, direction to hold and declare that, the impugned provision i.e., section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act procedurally improper, arbitrary, illegal and against the public welfare policy.

(c) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order direction in terms of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, direction to quash and set aside the impugned order of rejecting the application (Exhibit-A) by condoning the delay of 44 days caused in filing the application on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.

(d) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present writ petition, further effect and implementation of impugned Order dated 23-11-2022 be stayed on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

A) Issues Before the Court:

3. The principle issue for consideration is premised on the validity and legality of the Impugned Order dated 23 November 2022 (“Impugned Order” for short) passed by respondent no. 3. The said order rejected the petitioner’s application for enhanced compensation made under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (“Land Acquisition Act” for short) dated 16 September 2022, solely on the ground that such application is barred by limitation under the proviso to section 28A of Land Acquisition Act.

B) Factual Matrix:

The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the present proceedings are :-

4. This petition is filed by Mr. Nitin Bharat Savale (“The Petitioner”, for short) residing at taluka Indapur, district Pune. The petitioner states that he is the brother of the original applicant, one Mr. Sachin Savale (“The Original Applicant”, for short), who moved an application for enhanced compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“Land Acquisition Act” for short). Both, the petitioner and the original applicant are grandsons of the original landholder, Late Mr. Shankar Kisan Savale (“The Original Landholder”, for short) as stated by the petitioner. Further, it is stated by the petitioner that owing to the ill-health and physical inability of the original applicant to approach this Court, the petitioner has preferred the present petition on his behalf.

5. The respondent no.1 is the State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary Department of Revenue. The respondent no.2 is the District Collector of Solapur. The respondent no.3 is one, Smt. Manisha Avahale, the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 2-cum-Additional Collector, Solapur. Respondent no.4 is the Union of India through its Divisional Manager Central Railway Solapur.

6. The respondent nos. 3 and 4, vide award statement no. LAQ/SR/24/97 dated 19 December 2003, made under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act awarded a final compensation amount to the tune of Rs.