( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6309 OF 2008 Ramdas Bagaji Phapale PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another. RESPONDENTS ..... MR. P.V. Barde, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.V. Tele, A.G.p. for respondents/State. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 17th July, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner challenges order dated 31-12-2004 rendered by the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmednagar in context of Reference ( 2 ) Application filed under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned Special Land Acquisition Officer rejected the application of the petitioner holding that it was time-barred. 3. The petitioner filed the reference application under section 28A seeking parity in the matter of compensation as per the judgement and award rendered in another Reference Application (LAR No. 172/1979) arising out of same award. He filed such application on 10-10-1986. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by his communication dated 31-08-2004, calling upon the petitioner to explain why the reference application be not dismissed as time-barred. He was called upon to explain about the question of limitation. The petitioner gave a detailed reply to the show-cause notice. He submitted that the Land Acquisition Reference No. 172/1979 was decided on 21-04-1986. He had applied for certified copy on 11-07-1986 and received the same on 04-10-1986. He submitted that considering the period spent in obtaining the copies, the application under section 28A was well within ( 3 ) limitation. The learned Special Land Acquisition Officer held that the application under section 28A was filed on ninety second day from decision of the Civil Court and as such, is barred by limitation. 4. Heard learned counsel and learned A.G.P. 5. It is amply clear from bare perusal of section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act that the application may be filed within three (3) months from the date of the award of the Court. Proviso appended to section 28A would make it explicit that the time required for obtaining a copy of the award has to be excluded from the said period of three (3) months. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer considered the period of three (3) months as equivalent to 90 days. The specific reference to the expression “three months” in section 28A would mean the relevant number of days in each month from the date of the relevant award. As stated earlier, the award was rendered on 21-04-1986. The statutory period of limitation of three (3) months, considering the days in ( 4 ) each month of April, June and July, ought to have been considered. The month of May was of 31 days and, therefore, the statutory period of limitation would have come to an end on 22nd July, 1986. 6. Another error which has crept in is that the day of filing of the application was required to be excluded from counting. That has not been done. It is uncontroverted that the petitioner applied for copy of the award on 11-07-1986. The copy of the award was ready on 29-09-1986. He actually obtained the copy from the concerned Court on 04-10-1986. If the time consumed in obtaining the certified copy is excluded, then it will have to be stated that the application ought to have been presented on or before 11-10-1986. It was filed on 10-10-1986. Needless to say, it is well within time by any standard. 7. Mr. Barde rightly relied on “Babaji alias Baban Keru Phapale v. State of Maharashtra and another”, 2008 (4) Mh.L.J. 101 wherein this Court has dealt with ( 5 ) similar issue. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the above referred case-law handed down by the learned Single Judge (Borde, J.). In this view of the matter, the petition succeeds and deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to decide the application filed under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act in accordance with law on merits thereof, within period of six (6) months as far as possible. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP6309-08