- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5028 OF 1998 1.Shri.Kayaji Sufha Dhonde and others. ...Petitioners VS. 1.The Special Land Acquisition Officer no.2 Nashik & ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.V.Y.Patil i/b. P.N.Joshi, for Petitioners. Mr.A.H.Palekar, A.G.P. for Respondent nos.1,2 & 4. Mr.P.P.Charan i/b. M/s.Little & Co., for Respondent no.3. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.M.KANADE, JJ. V.M.KANADE, JJ. V.M.KANADE, JJ. DATED: 13th February,2008. DATED: 13th February,2008. DATED: 13th February,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition officer dated 15.9.1995 rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. - 2 - 2. The necessary facts are that the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation wanted to establish industrial estate, therefore it proposed to acquire land. It appears that after notifications were issued for acquisition of the land, agreements were entered into between the petitioners and the officers of the M.I.D.C. in relation to the compensation to be paid to the petitioners. On the basis of the agreements between the parties, the Special Land Acquisition officer made Award dated 20.2.1975. The compensation was determined by the land acquisition officer on the basis of the agreements between the parties. The compensation was paid. It appears that some of the land owners whose land was also acquired for M.I.D.C. had preferred reference. The Reference Court decided the reference and enhanced the compensation. Therefore, the applications under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act was filed by the petitioners. Those applications were rejected as not maintainable. The reason given by the Special Land Acquisition officer for holding that the applications were not maintainable is that the compensation was paid to the petitioners because of the agreements entered into between the parties and that compensation was - 3 - accepted by the petitioners. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioners submits that though it is true that the agreements were entered into between the petitioners and the officer of the acquiring body, according to him, those agreements become void because they were entered into because of misrepresentation. He submitted that such an allegation has been made in the representations which the petitioners had made to the Collector and the State Government about their grievances. According to him, therefore, their applications for enhancement of the compensation under Section 28A of the Act was maintainable. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. The applications of the petitioners, admittedly, were made under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act reads as under:- "28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.- (1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the - 4 - amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court. Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of - 5 - the award shall be excluded. (2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. (3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18." Perusal of the above provisions shows that after an - 6 - award is made enhancing the amount of compensation, then the persons who were eligible to make reference but have not made reference become entitled to make an application to the Collector within three months of the date of award. Therefore, basically an enquiry is to be made whether the petitioners were entitled to make reference after the award was made by the Special Land Acquisition officer. The provision governing reference to court is Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Provision of sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act is relevant which reads as under:- 18. Reference to Court - (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested." - 7 - Perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act quoted above shows that only the person interested in the land who has not accepted the award can make an application for reference. Therefore, the petitioners will have to show first that they did not accept the Award. We do not find anywhere in the petition a statement made that after the Award was made by the Special Land Acquisition officer, the petitioners did not accept the award or that they accepted the amount determined in the award under protest. On the contrary, in paragraph 10, we find that a statement is made that because the petitioners were badly in need of money they accepted the amount. It is nowhere stated that the petitioners did not accept the award. As the petitioners accepted the Award without any protest and the amounts that were payable under the Award without any protest, they are not entitled to make reference under Section 18 of the Act and therefore, they were not eligible to make application under Section 28A of the Act. In our opinion, the Special Land Acquisition officer was perfectly right in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 28A of the Act. The petition therefore, is rejected. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. - 8 - (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (V.M.Kanade, J.) ---