Kiran Raj

The Bombay High Court, in a judgment delivered by the Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna, dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for enhanced compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on grounds of delay. The court referred to Supreme Court precedents and stated that the statutory three-month limitation period for seeking redetermination of compensation begins from the date of the reference court’s award, with an exclusion only for the time taken to obtain a certified copy, and not from the date of knowledge of the award.

The case pertains to a dispute over land acquisition compensation arising from a railway expansion project in Maharashtra. The petitioner, a resident of Indapur, Pune, filed the writ petition on behalf of his brother, citing an order by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) that denied an application for enhanced compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The land in question was acquired under a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded a certain sum as compensation. However, another landowner, whose land was acquired under the same notification for the same project, successfully challenged the compensation amount before the reference court under Section 18 of the Act. The reference court enhanced the compensation awarded to that landowner.

Upon learning about this enhancement, the petitioner applied under Section 28A for redetermination of compensation for his own land. However, the application was rejected by the SLAO on the ground that it was filed beyond the three-month limitation period prescribed by the Act.

The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the application stemmed from personal difficulties, including the deaths of close family members. He also contended that the limitation period should begin from the date of obtaining a certified copy of the reference court’s judgment rather than from the date of its pronouncement. The petitioner claimed that he became aware of the reference court’s decision only later and acted promptly thereafter.

The respondents, representing the State of Maharashtra and the Land Acquisition Authority, opposed the petition. They contended that Section 28A explicitly requires applications to be filed within three months from the date of the court’s award. They asserted that the limitation period starts from the date of pronouncement of the reference court’s award, regardless of when the petitioner obtained knowledge of it. The respondents relied on past Supreme Court judgments to support their stance that the limitation period under Section 28A is mandatory and cannot be extended under equitable considerations.

The court carefully examined the language of Section 28A, which provides landowners who did not seek a reference under Section 18 an opportunity to claim enhanced compensation based on a favourable award obtained by another landowner for similarly acquired land. However, the provision also mandates that such an application must be made within three months of the reference court’s award.

The court stated:

"The provision explicitly prescribes a three-month period from the date of the award, with an exclusion only for the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the award. The plea that limitation should be reckoned from the date of knowledge is not legally sustainable."

Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the court held that procedural timelines under Section 28A are strict and cannot be extended on discretionary grounds:

"The right under Section 28A is statutory and distinct from the right under Section 18. Unlike Section 18, where the aspect of notice and knowledge is relevant, Section 28A does not require any notice to those who did not initially challenge the award. The limitation period is therefore rigid and not subject to equitable considerations."

The court also addressed the petitioner’s claim regarding personal hardships and the resulting delay in filing the application. It observed:

"While the petitioner’s circumstances are sympathetic, statutory provisions must be interpreted strictly. The legislature has provided a clear framework, and courts cannot dilute the limitation period through judicial discretion."

The court referred to a Supreme Court ruling that held that the limitation period under Section 28A cannot be relaxed based on considerations of hardship. It further cited past cases where similar delays in filing applications had resulted in dismissal, reinforcing that procedural compliance is crucial in statutory claims.

Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner had applied for a certified copy of the reference court’s judgment several months after its pronouncement, implying that the delay was not solely due to unforeseen hardships but also due to a lack of diligence in pursuing the claim. The court stated that the law provides a clear three-month window and that landowners seeking to avail themselves of Section 28A must act within this timeframe.

Based on the above findings the writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned order dated November 23, 2022, rejecting the petitioner’s application for enhanced compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was upheld. The court held that the application was time-barred, as it was filed beyond the prescribed three-month limitation period from the date of the reference court’s award. The petitioner’s argument regarding personal hardships and the timing of obtaining a certified copy of the award was not accepted as a ground for extending the statutory limitation. No costs were imposed.

Case Title: Nitin Bharat Savale v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 4475 of 2023
Bench: Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna

[Read/Download order]