Sachin Madhukar Purohit vs Union Of India & Ors.

Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The present petition raised an issue arising out of the order dated 23.10.2023 passed by Respondent No.3-Deputy Collector, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nagpur, in Case No.12/2022 whereby the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1894") came to be dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that the same were not filed within three months from the date of the judgment of the Reference Court, but were filed within three months from the date of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 on 04.07.2022, which was duly received by the office of the respondent-Collector. By the said application, the petitioner sought re-determination of the amount of compensation payable in respect of the acquired land.

Furthermore, it is submitted that, in the same light, another landowner, namely, Premlata Purushottam Paldiwal, whose land was acquired pursuant to the same notification and under the same award, had initially sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. Thereafter, she preferred an First Appeal before this Court, which came to be decided on 10.03.2021, whereby enhanced compensation was granted. The said judgment was then challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the appeal came to be finally decided on 06.04.2022.

In the aforesaid background, the petitioner filed their application under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 on 04.07.2022. However, the said application came to be rejected on the ground that they had not been filed within a period of three months from the date of the judgment of the Reference Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the legal position regarding the period within which an application under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 can be filed has now been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banwari & Others v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) & Another, (2024) 12 SCR 463. It has been held therein that an application under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 can be filed within a period of three months from the date of the judgment of the High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the case may be.

It is, therefore, submitted that the application filed by the petitioner on 04.07.2022 were within the prescribed period and ought to have been considered in view of the aforesaid legal position.

I have heard Mr. A.P. Deshmukh and Mr. P.L. Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S.A. Chaudhari, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents do not dispute the legal position canvassed by the petitioner. In fact the issue stands answered by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.3602/2025 which deals on similar lines

In view of the above, and having regard to the position of law as clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 3 cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. In the interest of justice, the matter is required to be remanded to Respondent No.2 for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Hence, I proceed to pass following order :