WP/6876/2026 of WAMAN BHIKAJI ADE AND OTHERS Vs SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER/ LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, RALEGAON, YAVATMAL AND ANOTHER on 5 November 2026

148.WP6876.26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 6876 OF 2026

Waman Bhikaji Ade And Others

VERSUS

Sub-divisional Officer/ Land Acquisition Officer, Ralegaon, Yavatmal And Another

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A. B. Nakshane, Advocate for the Petitioner(s).

Ms. M.A. Barabde, AGP for the Respondent(s)/State.

Mr. Balkrishna M. Kharkate, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/Caveator.

CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE

, J.

DATE : NOVEMBER 05, 2026.

1.

Heard Mr. A. B. Nakshane, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2.

Issue notice to the respondents.

3.

Learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of both the respondents.

4.

The present petition takes exception to the order dated 23.03.2026 passed on an application filed by the petitioners under Section 28(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act of 1894”). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, as can also be seen from the impugned order, is that the only reason which has weighed with the authority is that the First Appeal bearing Stamp No. 22442 of 2019, which crystallised the rights of the parties, was decided in a National Lok Adalat and, therefore, cannot be relied upon.

5.

In my considered opinion, the observation is erroneous, and it seems that respondent No. 1 has not understood the true context and purport of Section 28(A) of the Act of 1894. As can be seen from various judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Shubham 2026:BHC-NAG:15192

148.WP6876.26

Court, the basic purpose of Section 28(A) of the Act of 1894 is to give parity to the other project affected persons who have not filed a reference under Section 18 of the said Act within the prescribed period of limitation. Only because this Court has enhanced the compensation in a First Appeal, albeit in a Lok Adalat, it cannot be a reason in law to non-suit the present petitioners, more particularly, having regard to the object for which Section 28(A) is enacted and incorporated in the statute.

6.

In that view of the matter, the following order is passed: