In a petition filed before the Bombay High Court against an order dated 14-02-2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kolhapur, a Division Bench of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to decide the same within sixteen weeks.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer (respondent 2) had rejected an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and held that it was not supported by certified copies.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer acquired the subject land for the minor irrigation tank project Kitwad, and an award dated 31-03-1999 was passed granting a compensation of Rs. 77,000/- against the acquisition. A landowner having land adjacent to the subject lands, whose land was also acquired in the said proceedings, preferred a land acquisition reference, which was answered by the District Judge, and his compensation was enhanced.
The petitioner also took recourse to Section 28A and filed an application. However, he could not file a certified copy of the judgment and award passed by the District Judge in the above-mentioned matter, but annexed a true copy of the same. The petitioner was aggrieved because his application was denied solely because he failed to file the certified copies.
The Court noted that the Section 28A application was filed well within time, i.e., 3 months, but instead of the certified copies, the petitioner had annexed a true copy of the judgment. It was noted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had recorded that since the first page of the said judgment and award was not on record, the authority was unable to ascertain the time consumed in obtaining the copy for limitation to be counted.
The Court noted that the petitioner, a farmer, had lost his sole source of livelihood due to the compulsory acquisition done by the respondent authorities, and the compensation received by similarly affected farmers had been enhanced. Further, the Court opined that procedure must not frustrate the object and that the procedure is always to facilitate adjudication of the object.
The Court stated that in cases like the present matter, it is for the State machinery to alert and inform the sufferers of the compulsory land acquisition about their right to seek enhancement in the compensation if said party feels that the compensation is inadequate. It was said that the State machinery, including the land acquisition agencies, must not treat the litigation and grievances of such parties as adversary litigation.
Further, the Court said that blaming a farmer who is already traumatized by losing his sole livelihood and disappointed by inadequate compensation is not at all justifiable. It was stated that the Authorities are expected to be liberal while applying the procedure to claims and enhancement matters since enhancement in compensation for land acquisition is a statutory right.
Thus, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to decide the application preferred by the petitioner within sixteen weeks, while directing that the application should not be rejected on limitation or for want of a certified copy.
While allowing the writ petition, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to adduce any evidence or document that would support his claim.
Appearances:
Amicus Curiae – Mr. Swaroop Karade
For Respondent – Mrs. S.N. Deshmukh
