{1} wp1831-24.doc drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1831 OF 2024 Sandipan Gyandeo Late PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. S. D. Jayabhar h/f Mr. D. R. Jayabhar, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondent - State ....… AND WRIT PETITION NO.1853 OF 2024 Udhav Nivruttirao Kavhale PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. S. D. Jayabhar h/f Mr. D. R. Jayabhar, Advocate for Petitioner Mrs. Saie S. Joshi, AGP for Respondent - State ....… [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, & ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.] DATE : 28 th SEPTEMBER, 2026 ORDER : 1. This Petition seeks direction to Respondent No.2 to consider the application made by the Petitioners on 5th October, 2017 as an application under section 28 (A) (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same be decided within stipulated time. 2026:BHC-AUG:44615-DB {2} wp1831-24.doc 2. Learned AGP has strenuously opposed the Petition by relying on the affidavit in reply, wherein it is stated that the Petitioners had made Reference under section 28-A (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Minor Irrigation Works (MIW), Jalna for re- determination of the amount of the compensation on the basis of the Award of the Reference Court dated 10th March, 2011 passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.116 of 2010. On the basis of the same, compensation was re-determined on 24th October, 2011, on merits and the enhanced compensation amount was paid to the Petitioner on 5th July, 2013. He, therefore, submits that the application filed by the Petitioners under section 28-A (1) of the Land Acquisition Act is already decided and the Petitioners are not entitled to file second application under section 28 (A) of the Act. 3. We have heard learned Advocate for the Petitioners and learned AGP for the State. Perused the Writ Petition memo and the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondents and the citation relied on by the Petitioners. 4. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in “Andanayya and {3} wp1831-24.doc Others V/s Deputy Chief Engineer and Others” AIR 2026 SC 1632, wherein it is held : “25. From the analysis made hereinabove on the relevant provisions of the Act and the judgments relied upon by the parties, we are inclined to hold that even a second application made under Section 28 A of the Act after the award passed by the High Court is maintainable and entitled to be considered by the Collector / LAO. WE are of the view that, entertaining an earlier application filed under Section 28-A of the Act on the basis of the award of the Reference Court followed by the receipt of money, shall not act as a bar for the same applicant to seek further re-determination of compensation on the basis of the award passed by the High Court or this Court.” 5. The above observations are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, the Petitions deserve to be allowed. In the result, following order: ORDER 1. Writ Petitions are allowed. 2. Respondent No.2 is directed to decide the Application of the Petitioners dated 5th October, 2017 as filed under section 28 (A) of the Land Acquisition Act and decide the same in the light of the decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 2733 of 2013 and pay the enhanced compensation to the Petitioners within a period of 12 weeks from the date of decision of the said Application. [ ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ] [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE JUDGE drp/wp1831-24.doc