1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 712 of 2009 Nobel v. State and ors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr A.S.Kulkarni, Adv for petitioner Mr A.S. Fulzele, AGP for R-1 Mr Anand Parchure, Adv for R-2 Mr H.D. Dangre, Adv for R-3 to 26(b) Coram: D.D. Sinha and A.P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 2nd July 2009 1. Heard Mr A.S. Kulkarni, learned counsel for petitioner; Mr A.S. Fulzele, learned AGP for respondent no. 1; Mr Anand Parchure, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and Mr H.D. Dangre, learned counsel for respondents no. 3 to 26 (b). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the instant case, the Award is passed on 14.3.1983 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. In the instant case, the Collector acquired the land for respondent no.2 SICOM. It is further submitted that respondent no.2 thereafter leased out the said land to the petitioner initially vide lease deed dated 26.11.1985 and at a later point of 2 time the deed of conveyance dated 29.9.2003 was executed between them. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that some of the original owners of the land not being satisfied with the Award, filed a Reference under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Land Acquisition Act and the Civil Court enhanced the compensation given by the Special Land Acquisition. It is contended that respondents no. 3 to 26 (b), therefore, filed an application under Section 28A for grant of enhanced compensation which was granted to the other owners by the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not permitted by the Collector to participate in the proceedings under Section 28A initiated by respondent no. 2 and, therefore, the present petition. 3. Mr H.D. Dangre, learned counsel for respondents no. 3 to 26 (b) submitted that the issue is no more res integra and is concluded by the Apex Court in the case of Hindu Kanya Maha Vidyalaya, Jind and anr v. Municipal Committee and ors reported in AIR 1988 SC 2139. Mr Anand Parchure, learned counsel for SICOM submitted that the petitioner after deed of conveyance steps into the shoes of respondent no. 2 and should have been allowed to to participate in the proceedings under Section 28A of the Act. 4. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the 3 Scheme of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 28A contemplates that when the Court awards compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the “persons interested” in all the other lands covered by the same notification under Section 4 (1) and who are also aggrieved by the Award of the Collector, may, notwithstanding, that they have not made application to the Collector under Section 18 within three months from the date of Award of the Court, are eligible to make an application for re- determination of the compensation accordingly. 5. So far as the term “person interested” is concerned, the same has been interpreted by the Apex Court in the above-referred decision wherein the facts involved were similar to one involved in the present writ petition. In the instant case, respondent no.2 was the body for whom the land was acquired by respondent no. 1 and after the possession of the acquired land was given to respondent no. 2, transferred the land in favour of petitioner. Similar was the situation existed before the Apex Court in the above-referred case and the Apex Court has held that the person in whose favour the land was transferred by Municipal Committee, transferred the same in favour of another person, such person cannot be treated to be a “person interested” and confirmed the decision of the High Court. 6. The above-referred decision of the Supreme Court squarely 4 applies to the facts of the present case. Hence, no indulgence is called for in the present case. Petition suffers from lack of merit. The same is dismissed accordingly. 7. C.A. No. 381 of 2009 : In view of dismissal of writ petition, civil application filed for grant of stay does not survive for consideration. The same is accordingly rejected. Judge. Judge. hsj