27 Wp-4517-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4517 OF 2022 Subrao Yeshwant Teurwadkar. ] ...Petitioner. Versus 1. The Collector, Kolhapur. ] 2. The Special Land Acquisition Oicer ] (SDO), Gadhinglaj, Tal : Gadhinglaj, ] District : Kolhapur. ] 3. The Executive Engineer, ] Small Irrigation Department, ] Kolhapur. ] ...Respondents. —————— Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ. Date : December 8, 2025. Oral Judgment [Per M. S. Karnik, J.]: 1. None for the Petitioner. 2. Record reveals that at the time of iling of present petition in the year 2019, the Petitioner was 80 years of age. The Petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated 14th February 2019 passed by the SDO- Land Acquisition Oicer, Gadhinglaj, District Kolhapur in application No. LA/28A/SR/30/2009. 3. We have perused the memo of petition, with the assistance of learned AGP. Learned AGP argued in support of the impugned order. Patil-SR 1 of 5 27 Wp-4517-2022.doc We do not want to keep the present petition pending nor the Petitioner be made to undergo further challenges in this petition considering his age. 4. Facts of the present case, in brief, are that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of Small Irrigation Project, Chandgad, Dist : Kolhapur commenced in the year 1997. Lands from Villages Kitwad, Kalkundri and Hosur, Taluka Chandgad, District Kolhapur were acquired for the said project. Petitioner claims to be the owner of land bearing Gat No.1284 of village Kitwad, Taluka Chandgad, District Kolhapur. The same was afected by land acquisition proceedings. The Respondents have acquired area as per inal award to the extent of 1-Hectare 66-Are from Gat No.1248 belonging to the Petitioner and award came to be passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short “the LA Act”] on 31st March 1999. One of the land owners whose land was acquired for the same project and under the same award preferred Land Acquisition Reference before the Additional District Court, Gadhinglaj, District Kolhapur under Section 18 of the LA Act for getting enhanced compensation and the same was registered as Land Acquisition Reference No.234 of 1999. The Additional District Judge vide judgment and order dated 8th August 2008 partly allowed the said reference and enhanced the compensation. On the basis of said judgment and award passed under Section 18 of LA Act in LAR No. 234 Patil-SR 2 of 5 27 Wp-4517-2022.doc of 1999, the Petitioner iled an application under Section 28A of LA Act on 15th October 2010 for redetermination of the amount of compensation in accordance with the judgment and order delivered by the Reference Court in LAR No. 234 of 1999 as the land of Petitioner was acquired under the same notiication and for the same purpose. The Petitioner had not iled any reference under Section 18 of LA Act. 5. The Respondent No.2 on 16th December 2014 issued notice calling for the say from Petitioner. The Petitioner submitted all necessary documents with the Respondent No.2. By communication dated 14th February 2019, Respondent No.2 rejected the application iled by Petitioner on the ground that Petitioner cannot be given the beneit of proviso to Section 28A of LA Act as the Petitioner had not applied for the certiied copy of the judgment and award dated 8th August 2008 in LAR No. 234 of 1999. 6. Though learned AGP supported the impugned order and submitted that even the Petitioner can now produce the certiied copy of judgment and order in LAR No. 234 of 1999, we are not impressed with this submission. The impugned order is passed on a highly hyper- technical ground. At the time of iling of petition in the year 2019, the Petitioner is stated to be of 80 years of age. 7. The Petitioner had iled xerox copy of the judgment and order passed in LAR No.234 of 1999. However, the certiied copy of judgment Patil-SR 3 of 5 27 Wp-4517-2022.doc and order in LAR No. 234 of 1999 was placed on record of Respondent No.2 along with the connected applications iled on behalf of other land owners whose lands were acquired for the said project. The concerned advocate had iled certiied copy in one of the applications, may not be in the application iled by the Petitioner. But factually it is on the very same judgment and award that the Petitioner was claiming the beneit of proviso to Section 28A of LA Act. Rejecting the application of Petitioner on a technical consideration that Petitioner has not iled certiied copy of judgment and order in LAR No. 234 of 1999 along with his application, virtually amounts to defeating the very purpose for which Section 28A of LA Act was enacted. Section 28A of the LA Act is a beneicial provision intended to remove inequality and give relief to poor land owners, who could not prefer reference to the civil Court under Section 18 of LA Act. 8. The application of Petitioner was iled on the very same day when other applications, accompanied by certiied copy of judgment and order in LAR No. 234 of 1999, were iled on the basis of which Petitioner also claims relief. In fact, the xerox copy of judgment and order passed in LAR No.234 of 1999 was placed on record by the Petitioner along with his application. We, therefore, have no hesitation in quashing and setting aside the impugned order. Consequently, we direct the Respondent No.2 to decide the application preferred by the Petitioner Patil-SR 4 of 5 27 Wp-4517-2022.doc under Section 28A of LA Act which is subject matter of impugned order, on its own merits and in accordance with law. 9. Petitioner is entitled to the same reliefs as is granted to the other beneiciaries of the judgment and award in LAR No. 234 of 1999 who iled applications along with the Petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 28A of LA Act with statutory interest prescribed. 10. Learned AGP to ensure that this order is communicated to the Respondent No.2 on or before 15th December 2025. Additionally, the Registrar of this Court to ensure that copy of this order is intimated to Respondent No.2. Upon receipt of copy of this order, Respondent No. 2 shall ensure that Petitioner or his representative is issued a notice of hearing along with the copy of this order. Petitioner or his duly authorised representative may appear before Respondent No.2 on the date so ixed. Necessary orders be passed on such application within a period of six weeks from 15th December 2025. The payment of compensation along with statutory interest be paid to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of decision on the said application. 11. Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Disposed of with no order as to costs. 12. List on 16th February 2026 under the caption for compliance. [Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.] [M. S. Karnik, J.] Patil-SR 5 of 5