Be Liberal While Applying Procedure To Farmers’ Claims: Bombay High Court Asks Special Land Acquisition Officer To Reconsider Representation
The Bombay High Court was considering a petition challenging an order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in a land acquisition case.
Justice M. S. Karnik, Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar, Bombay High Court (Kolhapur Bench)
While holding that the authorities are expected to be liberal while applying the procedure to the claims of the farmers and enhancement matters, the Bombay High Court has allowed a petition filed by a farmer and asked the Special Land Acquisition Officer to reconsider his application filed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The High Court was considering a petition challenging an order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in a land acquisition case.
The Division Bench of Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar held, “Enhancement in compensation for land acquisition is a statutory right. The State Government is expected to be a model instrument and agency for adequately compensating the suferers of compulsory land acquisition. Putting blame on the farmer who is already in trauma of losing his sole livelihood and disappointed due to inadequate compensation, is not at all justifiable. It is but obvious that such strata of society is least aware of the legal procedure and may not be adequately updated about their right to seek enhancement and the procedure for that purpose. Hence, the Authorities are expected to be liberal while applying the procedure to the claims and enhancement matters.”
Amicus Curiae Swaroop Karade represented the Petitioner, while Assistant Government Pleader S. N. Deshmukh represented the Respondent-State.
Factual Background
The land in question was acquired for the Minor Irrigation tank project, Kitwad. An award was passed granting compensation of Rs 77,700 against the acquisition. A landowner having land adjacent to the subject-matter lands, whose land was acquired in the same land acquisition proceedings and who was granted compensation vide the same Award, preferred a Land Acquisition Reference. The Reference Court answered the Land Acquisition Reference No.234 of 1999 and enhanced the compensation. The Petitioner too took recourse to Section 28A of the Act and filed such an application.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer (second Respondent) passed the impugned order whereby the application filed by the Petitioner came to be rejected. The Petitioner approached the High Court with the grievance that the application under Section 28A of the Act was turned down merely by observing that the Applicant did not file a certified copy of the Judgment which was passed in favour of the other landowner. The petitioner also claimed that the application under Section 28A ought to have been decided by the Officer on its own merits, and it ought not to have been rejected on a technical ground.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the application under Section 28-A of the Act was filed well within time. However, the Petitioner, instead of submitting a certified copy of the Judgment and Award passed in LAR No. 234 of 1999, annexed its true copy.
“We can not overlook the fact that Petitioner is a farmer. He has lost his sole source of livelihood under the compulsory acquisition undertaken by the Respondent authorities. Similarly afected farmers have received enhancement in compensation in the same set of facts”, the order read.
Observing that procedure must not frustrate the object, the Bench stated, “In the cases of farmers like the present Petitioner, in fact it is for the State Machinery to alert and inform the landlosers @ suferers of the compulsory land acquisition, about their right to seek enhancement in the compensation, if such party so desires or feels affected due to inadequate compensation. These parties lose their sole source of earning for some public purpose that the Government authorities undertake. The State machinery, including the Land Acquisition Agencies must not treat these litigation and grievances of such parties as adversary litigation.”
Thus, exercising the powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Bench quashed the order rejecting the Petitioner’s application under Section 28A. Allowing the petition, the Bench also ordered, “Matter is remitted back to the Respondent No.2, to decide the application preferred by Petitioner under Section 28A of the Act, on ‘merits’ necessarily in the light of findings in the Judgment and Award dated 8th August 2008 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Gadhinglaj in Land Acquisition Reference No.234 of 1999. The application shall not be rejected on limitation or for want of certified copy.”
Cause Title: Tukaram Janaba Patil v. The Collector (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-KOL:4407)