1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6277 OF 2004 Sharada D. Shaligram & Ors. ... Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mrs. Kiran Bhagalia for the Petitioners Ms. M.P. Thakur, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondents No. 1 and 2 Mr. R.M. Pethe instructed by Mr. R.G. Ketkar for Respondent No. 3. CORAM: KSHITIJ R. VYAS, C.J., & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD , J. DATE: APRIL 4 , 2006 P.C.:- 1. The petitioners challenge the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 16, Pune, dated 23rd October, 2000, who rejected the petitioners' application filed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, for short, “the Act”), on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation. 2 2. It appears that the portion of land bearing Survey No. 43/2B/3 of Village Parwati, admeasuring about 2319 square metres, which belonged to Shaligram family, was reserved for a play ground in the Development Plan of Pune City. The Pune Municipal Corporation initiated acquisition proceedings of the said land. Respondent No. 2 completed the acquisition proceedings of the said land and declared an Award on 30th June, 1990, determining the amount of compensation at Rs.11,29,514/-. It was directed that the said amount be deposited in the District Court, Pune, to be distributed amongst the heirs of deceased Shaligram. The District Court issued notices to all the persons whose names were there in the Award. 3. It appears that since the petitioners' predecessor-in-title, Dattatraya Vinayak Shaligram, had expired and no heirs of late Dattatraya Shaligram came forward to clam the amount, the learned Judge directed to refund the said amount to the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioners filed Misc. Application No. 774 of 1997 claiming that they are entitled to compensation as the heirs of late Dattatraya Vinayak Shaligram. 4. It further appears that one of the co-owners of the said land, viz., 3 Shankar Gajanan Shaligram, who had 1/6th share in the said land, filed Land Reference No. 255 of 1991 under Section 18 of the Act before the learned District Judge, Pune, for enhancement of compensation. The learned Judge, by his order dated 4th August, 1999, enhanced the compensation in respect of the 1/6th share of Shankar G. Shaligram. 5. The petitioners, thereafter, filed an application on 12th July, 2000 under Section 28-A of the Act, which is admittedly beyond the period of three months. 6. In Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 526, our attention is invited to paragraph 5 of the judgment of the Apex Court. The Court has taken a lenient view in favour of the claimant, by observing that it is unnecessary for it to advert to the relevance or applicability of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the case of the nature before it. It is further observed that there is no reason to differentiate the claims of the co-owners whose claims came to be really sustained and that of another respondent, for different treatment. 4 7. In the face of the above, there are no justifiable reasons given by the petitioners in support of the petition. We are in agreement with the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. There is no merit in this petition. It is dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.