AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, ACJ) :-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
The Petitioners have put forth prayer clause ‘A’, which reads as under:-
“A) This Hon'ble Court may graciously call the record from respondents and may kindly be issue appropriate Writ of certiorari, Writ of Mandamus and may kindly be quashed and set aside the order dated 22.08.2019 passed by respondent no. 3 in matter no. "Land Acquisition-1/ATPH/SR/208/03/2019 may kindly be direct to refer the matter to the Ld. Reference Court.”
The dates and sequence of events can be summarized as under:-
The agricultural land of the Petitioners admeasuring 12 R in Gat No.173/A3 at village Chitegaon, was acquired for construction of a Medium Irrigation Tank. On 26.09.2008, an award was delivered under Section 11 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
A reference was filed under Section 18 by the adjacent land holder, namely, Amarchang Dagdulal Sharma, which was registered as LAR No.490/2009.
On 16.09.2012, the said LAR proceedings were settled in Maha-Lokadalat and enhanced compensation of Rs.3.25 lacs per hectare for Jirayat land and Rs.1,62,500 per hectare for Potkharaba land, was granted.
Because the Petitioners were similarly situated, they moved the proceedings under Section 28-A before Respondent No.3 (Special Land Acquisition Officer), who delivered the award under Section 28-A on 05.02.2014.
On 19.07.2016, this Court dealt with Writ Petition No.9520/2015 filed by Respondent No.4 (Executive Engineer, MIW, Jalgaon) and delivered an order by which, the award dated 16.09.2012 delivered in Maha-Lokadalat in LAR No.490/2009, was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
On 02.05.2017, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, delivered a judgment and award by granting enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.5.40 lacs per hectare for Jirayat land and Rs.2.70 lacs per hectare for Potkharaba land.
24.08.2017, the Petitioners accepted the amounts as were granted vide the Maha lokadalat.
On 12.09.2017, the Petitioners approached the Reference Court under Section 28(3) within the limitation period.
According to the Petitioners, the competent Authority i.e. Respondent No.3 (Special Land Acquisition Officer), instead of referring the matter to the appropriate Court, considering the scheme of Section 28-A(3), passed the impugned order on 22.08.2019, rejecting the application.
The Petitioners’ grievance is that they have received the compensation amount as was granted in Maha-Lokadalat wherein, LAR No.490/2009 was settled on 16.09.2012. At the time of receipt of the amount on 24.08.2017, the competent Court at Jalgaon had delivered the judgment and award on 02.05.2017 in the matters pertaining to adjacent land holders, who received enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.5.40 lacs per hectare for Jirayat land and Rs.2.70 lacs per hectare for Potkharaba land. This amount should have been quantified even with regard to the Petitioners, who were identically placed. Having not done so, the Petitioners’ application under Section 28-A(3) should have been considered by Respondent No.3 only for the purposes of referring it to the concerned Court since the Petitioners have sought an identical relief as was granted by the said Court vide judgment dated 02.05.2017.
Sub-section (3) of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, reads as under:-
“(3)Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18.”
There is no dispute that if a person has not accepted the award delivered under sub-section (2) of Section 28-A, such person could make a written application to the Collector requiring that the matter be referred by the Collector u/s 28-A(3) for the determination of the Court and the provisions of Sections 18 to 28, as far as may be, would apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under Section 18.
The learned AGP has vehemently canvassed that the Petitioners have accepted the amount as was agreed in Maha-Lokadalat without demur and, therefore, having accepted the amount and having submitted an affidavit declaring that the amount is acceptable to the Petitioners, they are estopped from seeking benefits of the judgment of the competent Court dated 02.05.2017.
We have a peculiar case before us. The facts and sequence of events narrated above, would clearly indicate that these Petitioners, who are villagers, innocently believed and acted upon the Maha-Lokadalat settlement. It is beyond debate that such Claimants have no bargaining power and they cannot resist the system when it comes to receiving monies which are to be paid to them by the appropriate Authorities.
It is also beyond dispute that several Revenue Officers, while disbursing such amounts, for the reasons best known to them, extract affidavits from the persons like the Petitioners stating therein that they are agreeable to accept the amounts as are being offered to them and would not raise any grievance thereafter. Such affidavits, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the backdrop of the specific provisions of Sections 18 to 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, causing prejudice to such Claimants, cannot act as an estoppel. The conduct of such Petitioners cannot work against their own interest when the law prescribes higher benefits, if such judgment is delivered under Section 28-A. Being identically placed, any affidavit extracted from such Claimants cannot act to the detriment of their interest. We, therefore, have every reason in law to overlook such affidavits.
In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions :-
The impugned order passed by Respondent No.3, dated 22.08.2019, is quashed and set aside.
The application of these Petitioners dated 12.09.2017, shall stand restored to the file of Respondent No.3, who shall forthwith transfer the said application to the Court of competent jurisdiction in view of Section 28-A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within a period of twenty one (21) days from today.
The competent Court shall follow the due procedure as is laid down in law while dealing with the said application, keeping in view the earlier judgment dated 02.05.2017, which was delivered nine years ago.
Consequentially, we also direct that the claim of the Petitioners as regards the interest component as is permissible in law, shall also be considered by the Court while dealing with the application of these Petitioners.
Needless to state, the amount which is already received by the Petitioners along with the interest component, may be set off against the amount which is now liable to be paid to the Petitioners with accrued interest.
Since the competent Court has already delivered the judgment on 02.05.2017, we would expect an early decision by the said Court with regard to the claim of the Petitioners (all legal heirs of the original Claimant) and preferably within a period of six months from today.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.