( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1603 OF 2007 The Executive Engineer, Nandur Madhmeshwar Canal Division, Vaijapur, District Aurangabad. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Aurangabad 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jaikwadi Project No.2, Collector Office, Aurangabad. 3. Nana s/o Govind Rahane Since deceased by his L.Rs. Alkabai @ Hirabai w/o Nana Rahane, R/o Behind Brahmachari Mandir, Tq. Vaijapur, District Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.R. Sonwalkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Lodhe, AGP for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. A.B. Kale, advocate for respondent No. 3. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 11th February, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. ( 2 ) 2. The petitioner is Acquiring Body. The land of the respondent No. 3 was acquired under provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the rival contentions. Suffice it to say that the respondent No. 3 did not prefer any Reference application against the quantum of compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. However, other claimants, who were dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, challenged the same award by way of Reference application. The Reference Court enhanced compensation awarded to them. The respondent No.3, therefore, filed an application under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector for payment of enhanced compensation in the summary proceedings on the ground that he too was entitled to claim such compensation in as much as he was covered by the same award. The application was allowed. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Collector granted application exparte without ( 3 ) considering the submissions of the petitioner. Nor any notice was given and, therefore, the petitioner had no opportunity to put forth the objections. 4. Heard learned counsel. 5. It is undisputed that the petitioner was not served with any notice. It is also explicit that hearing to the Acquiring Body is necessary in such a case. The counsel for the parties submit that the present petition is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in a group of petitions consisting of writ petition Nos. 1597/2007 to 1602/2007, 1604/2007 to 1608/2007, 1648/2007, 1650/2007, 1652/2007, 1654/2007, 1655/2007, 1658/2007. This Court held that in such a case, the application preferred by the claimant requires afresh hearing. Under the circumstances, the petition will have to be allowed. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application filed under ( 4 ) section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act is restored to its original position. The Collector shall hear the petitioner and thereafter, decide the application afresh. The parties shall appear before the learned Collector on 22nd March, 2010. Rule made absolute accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp1603-07