LAWS(BOM)-2006-3-99

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BHANUDAS MARUTI KADAKNE

Decided On March 17, 2006
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Appellant
V/S
BHANUDAS MARUTI KADAKNE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned A. G. P. for the appellants. None appears for the respondents. These two appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. The facts of both the Appeals are more or less identical. The Judgments and Awards which are impugned in this Appeals have been passed by the Reference Court in a reference under section 28a (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act").

(2.) The respondents in the above appeals are the original claimants whose lands were acquired under the said Act. After declaration of the Award under section 11 of the said Act, the respondents did not file any Application for reference under section 18 of the said Act. Subsequently the respondents applied under section 28a (1) of the said Act for re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award passed by the Reference Court in the first Appeal Nos. 1096 and 1097 of 1988 decided on 17-3-2006. (Bombay) Land Reference No. 248 of 1983 and the other connected Land References. It appears that the Application of the respondents under section 28a (1) of the said act was rejected by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that the applications were barred by limitation. The ground on which the Applications were rejected was that prior to 26th April, 1985 i. e. the date on which the Award was made in Land Acquisition Reference No. 248 of 1983, another reference being Land Acquisition Reference No. 329 of 1982 in respect of another land which was notified for acquisition under the same notification under section 4 of the said Act was decided on 30th April. 1983 and the respondents ought to have filed application under section 28a (1) within a period of three months from 30th april. 1983. Aggrieved by the Award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer of refusing to re-determine the amount of compensation, applications were made by she Claimants under sub-section (3) of section 28a for reference. By the impugned Judgments and Awards the references made on the basis of the said applications have been allowed and the compensation payable to the respondents has been enhanced on the basis of the subsequent awards passed by the reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference No. 248 of 1983.

(3.) Shri Tated, the learned A. G. P. appearing for the Appellants submitted that there are conflicting decisions of different Benches of the Apex Court on the issue. He submitted that there are decisions of the Apex Court which hold that the limitation of three months provided by section 28a (1) will have to be computed from the date of the earliest award which is made in respect of other lands covered by the same notification under section 4. He submitted that each successive award cannot give cause of action for filing an Application under section 28a (1) and the cause of action arises only on the basis of the Award which is earliest in point of time. He pointed out that the question whether application under section 28a (1) can be filed within a period of three months from the date of any Award or from the date of the earliest award is pending before the larger bench of the -Apex Court. Shri Tated further pointed out that the limitation is required to be computed from the date of the earliest award which is dated 30th april, 1983 and from that date if the limitation is computed, the Applications under section 28a (1) made by the respondents were barred by limitation. He has invited my attention to the various decisions of the Apex Court on this question.