TUKARAM JANABA PATIL v. THE COLLECTOR KOLHAPUR AND ORS
Rejection of Section 28A Application on Technicality of Certified Copy is Unjustified; Land Acquisition Act is a Beneficial Legislation to Ensure Fair Compensation.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-KOL:4407
Decision Date: 23-12-2025
List of Laws
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Facts: The petitioner, Tukaram Janaba Patil, sought enhancement of compensation for land acquired for a minor irrigation project. He filed an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after a neighboring landowner received enhanced compensation through a reference court. The Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) rejected the petitioner's application because he submitted a true copy instead of a certified copy of the reference court's judgment and award.
- Procedural Posture: Aggrieved by the SDO's order, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging the rejection of his application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Issue: Did the Sub Divisional Officer err in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, solely on the technical ground that a certified copy of the reference court's judgment and award was not submitted, especially when the application was filed within the limitation period?
- Holding: Yes, the High Court held that the SDO erred in rejecting the application on a technicality. The court quashed the SDO's order and remitted the matter back to the respondent for a decision on the merits of the petitioner's claim.
- Reasoning: The Court found that the application under Section 28A was filed within the prescribed limitation period. The court emphasized that procedural requirements should not frustrate the object of the law, which is to provide fair compensation to landowners. Citing Banwari v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Limited [AIR 2025 SC 165], the court reiterated that Section 28A is a beneficial provision intended to remove inequality in compensation and should be interpreted liberally to benefit inarticulate and poor people. The court also noted that the State has a responsibility to inform landowners of their rights to seek enhanced compensation and should not treat them as adversaries. The court held that rejecting the application solely for want of a certified copy was a hyper-technical approach.
🔒 For Members Only