AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J.—Heard Mr. Talaulikar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Rule. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard forthwith.
By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 28/8/2009 passed by the Deputy Collector/Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa Margao in Case No. 99/3/92-LA by which application filed by the Respondents u/s 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("The Act" for short) has been allowed.
Briefly, the facts relevant for disposal of this petition are as under:
By notification dated 7/4/1992 published u/s 4 of The Act, the Government of Goa acquired lands of several persons for public purpose. An area admeasuring 3900 sq.mtrs. belonging to the Respondents was part of the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer made the award on 5/9/1994 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 4.50 per sq.metre in respect of the land belonging to the Respondents.
Some of the interested persons covered by the same notification aggrieved by the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer sought reference u/s 18 of the Act. By award dated 28/6/2000 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No. 104/1996, the Reference Court partly allowed the reference and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 60/-per sq.mtre. Appeal preferred against the said award by the State Government was dismissed by this Court by judgment and order dated 21/7/2004.
On 18/8/2004, the Respondents made an application purportedly u/s 28A of The Act seeking enhanced compensation on the basis of the award dated 28/6/2000 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 106/1996. The application was opposed by the Petitioners herein, inter alia, on the ground of limitation. The Land Acquisition Officer without considering the issue of limitation allowed the application and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 60/-per sq,mtr. on the basis of the award passed in L.A.C No. 106/1996.
On behalf of the Petitioners, Mr. Talaulikar, learned Additional Government Advocate placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of A.P. and Anr. v. Marri Venkaiah and Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 280 submitted that in terms of Section 28A of the Act, limitation for filing an application u/s 28A begins from the date of passing of the award by the Reference Court in L.A.C No. 104/1996 i.e 20/8/2000 and as such, the application filed by the Respondents on 18/8/2004 was barred by limitation and having regard to the settled law that neither the Land Acquisition Officer nor the Reference Court has power to condone the delay, under the Land Acquisition Act, the application filed by the Respondents u/s 28A, was barred by limitation and as such, ought to have been dismissed on this ground alone. Learned advocate therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Collector, South Goa, Margao be quashed and set aside.
Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents supported the impugned judgment and order.
It is well settled that an application u/s 28A of The Act seeking enhanced compensation on the basis of another award in respect of the lands covered under the same notification is to be filed within a period of three months from the date of award. As stated above, it is also well settled that neither the Land Acquisition Officer nor the Reference Court has the power to condone the delay under the Act. This being the position, I find merit in the submission of Mr. Talaulikar that the application filed by the Respondents was barred by limitation and as such, the Land Acquisition Officer could not have entertained the application filed u/s 28A of the Act. On this ground alone, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aide.
For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgment and order dated 28/8/2009 passed by the Collector, South Goa, Margao is quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms with No. order as to costs.