[Land Acquisition] Letter To Competent Authority Under Maha Industrial Development Act Sufficient For Referring Compensation Enhancement Claim: High Court

"In my view, Section 34 of the MID Act states about written application and the written applications were filed by the appellants before respondent No.2. So it proves that the appellants had accepted the said compensation amount under protest and they were seeking enhancement", the court observed.

Justice S. G. Dige of the Aurangabad bench was dealing with a clutch of appeals that challenged reference court's decision to reject appellants' claim petitions. The court further observed that Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (MID Act) requires written application for reference to court for enhancement of compensation, but it does not prescribe a form of petition.

"Section 34 does not provide a form of petition, it states about written application", said the court.

The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) had acquired the land of the appellants and paid compensation. The appellants filed claim petitions before the Reference Court for enhancement of compensation. Their petitions were rejected on the ground that the references were not within limitation period. The appellants approached the High Court challenging the judgment of the Reference Court.

Advocate Amit A. Mukhedkar for the appellants contended that the appellants filed applications before the Sub-Divisional Officer on the same day they received the compensation. The applications stated that they are accepting the amount under protest and they are entitled for the enhanced compensation. However, the Reference Court did not consider this and wrongly concluded that the petitions were not within the limitation.

Advocate S. S. Dande for MIDC submitted that there was no evidence to prove that the claim petitions were filed before the Sub Divisional Officer within limitation period to refer the matter to court for enhancement of compensation.

The court perused section 34 of the MID Act which provides that the concerned person may file written application for referring the matter to court by within 60 days from the date when the amount of compensation is determined.

In the present case, the Reference Court had observed that the appellants gave letters to the Sub Divisional Officer but those letters cannot be considered as reference petitions.

The court said that section 34 of the MID Act talks about written application and written applications were filed by the appellants. This proves that they accepted the compensation under protest and were seeking enhancement. Section 34 does not provide form of petition; it only mentions written application, the court added.

The court set aside the Reference Court's observation that there was three days' delay in filing the petitions and observed that there was no delay in filing the claim petitions.

The court held that the petitions were within limitation and remanded the matter back to the Civil Court, Jalna for fresh hearing. The court clarified that the fresh hearing to both parties is only for the issue of whether the compensation determined by the Reference Court is proper or not.

Case no. – First Appeal No. 1031 of 2014 and connected cases

Case title – Baburao s/o. Deorao Khole v. State of Maharashtra and Ors with connected cases

Citation- 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 408