1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2441 OF 2008 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2462 OF 2008 Dattu Raghu Gowari & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the petitioners Mr.P.M.Patil, A.G.P. for the respondents CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL & & & A.A.SAYED, JJ A.A.SAYED, JJ A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 5TH MAY, 2008 DATED : 5TH MAY, 2008 DATED : 5TH MAY, 2008 P.C.: 1. Notice to respondents, returnable forthwith. Ld.A.G.P. waives service for the respondents. 2. The only limited grievance which is raised by the petitioners in this petition and seek direction to the respondents is to decide their application 2 under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act which is pending for last 14 years. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are residents of village Kamothe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad and their lands have been acquired vide notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 03.02.1970 and the award came to be passed on 01.09.1986. Thereafter, one of the persons affected by the acquisition filed a reference under section 18 of the said Act. The matter was referred to the IInd Additional District Judge, Panvel at Alibag and was registered as Land Acquisition Reference No.213 of 1987 who by judgment and order dt.22.06.94 partly allowed the reference on the basis of which the petitioner filed an application under section 28A of the said Act. From 21.09.94 till today, the petitioners have not heard anything in the matter. 4. This is a case which rather demonstrates sheer negligence on the part of respondent nos.2 and 3. Keeping the application under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act pending would result in 3 unnecessary burden on the public exchequer in case the State is required to pay enhanced compensation alongwith statutory interest to the petitioners. 5. This court has time and again reminded the state of its obligation to deal with such applications expeditiously and in one of the cases, the Chief Secretary of the State was made aware of the pathetic situation and utter callousness of the Authority in dealing with such matters. 6. This court is of the view that rather than taxing the public exchequer it is highly expedient for the State to penalise the officials who are incharge of dealing with such matters and collect the statutory interest which is payable to the land owner whose land has been acquired from their pocket which would send a proper message as there is no reason why tax payers money should be spent for the negligence / dereliction of duty of the officers of the State. 7. We therefore, dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to take a decision 4 in the matter of application filed by the petitioners under section 28A of the Act within a period of 3 months from the date of passing of this order. We leave it to the State to take appropriate action against the concerned officials, most of whom might have been transferred or have retired due to passage of time to recover the statutory interest from the officials considering their public accountability vis-a-vis duty cast upon them in dealing with such matters. 8. Petition stands disposed of accordingly with costs which is quantified at Rs.5,000/- each to be paid to the petitioners by the respondent no.3 from his own pocket. ( SHRI J.N. PATEL, J ) ( SHRI J.N. PATEL, J ) ( SHRI J.N. PATEL, J ) ( SHRI A.A. SAYED, J ) ( SHRI A.A. SAYED, J ) ( SHRI A.A. SAYED, J )