IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5443 OF 2009. AND WRIT PETITION Nos.5465, 5467, 5468, 5476, 5477, 5489, 5491, 6289, 6583 & 6777 OF 2009. Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation, Aurangabad. ... PETITIONER. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. ... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri S.S. Thombre, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for R.Nos.1 and 2. Shri N.J. Pahune Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.3. ... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 2nd February, 2010. PER COURT: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 Writ Petition No.6777/2009 is not on Board today. Upon mentioning, taken up on Board and heard along with companion matters. 3 Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondents waive notice. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing. 4 In all these petitions, the petitioner which is acquiring body has challenged the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Vaijapur, District Aurangabad under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to the petitioner, the award was pronounced on 4th January, 1993 whereas the application under Section 28-A of the said Act came to be filed in all these petitions on 15th July, 1993. The latter fact is undisputed. According to the respondents however, the award was pronounced on 29th January, 1993 and not 4th January, 1993 as is contended by the petitioner, on which the date only the judgment was pronounced. Besides considering the copying days, the application filed under Section 28-A of the said Act was well within limitation. 5. Notably, the issue regarding limitation was specifically raised by the petitioner before the Special L.A.O. Assuming that the issue was not specifically raised, even then, it would have been the duty of the Special L.A.O. to consider that aspect on its own merits. The Special L.A.O., in the impugned award while dealing with the question of limitation has merely observed thus: “J) Limitation – As per the provision contained in section 28-A of the Act applications u/s 28-A of the Act are required to be submitted within three months from the date of the Award of the court and the period within which copy of the Award of the court was obtained is required to be excluded from the above period accordingly. I have scrutinized all applications and such scrutiny sheet is attached with each application of the applicant. As per such scrutiny sheet all applications are within prescribed period of limitation.” 6. This opinion is only in the nature of conclusion deduced by the Special L.A.O., without recording the reasons, which persuaded him to take said view. The Special L.A.O. ought to have analyzed the contentions of both sides and after referring to the settled legal position and the provisions of Section 28-A of the said Act, addressed the issue of limitation, on its own merits. That has not been done in the present case. 7. Instead of examining the issue for the first time before this Court, the proper course would be to set aside the impugned award and restore the applications filed under Section 28-A of the said Act to the file of the Special L.A.O., to be heard afresh, on its own merits on the issue of limitation. In so far as other issues answered by the Special L.A.O. on merits of the claim are concerned, it is fairly stated across the Bar by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no grievance with regard to the correctness thereof. In other words, if the issue of limitation was to be answered against the claimants, the applications would necessarily be rejected. However, if the same was to be answered in favour of the claimants in that case on the other issues on merits of the claim, it will be open to the Special L.A.O. to reiterate the same position and pass award on that basis. As aforesaid, all questions with regard to the issue of limitation are left open, to be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law. The Special L.A.O. shall dispose of the restored applications under Section 28-A of the said Act, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitions are allowed, accordingly. Rule made absolute on the above terms. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ] PLK/*