Bombay High Court
ANKUSH KATHALRAO LANDE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR REVENUE AND FOREST IRRIGATION DEPT AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The department cannot dismiss the applications solely on the ground of an uncertain filing date and must decide them on their merits.
Summary
The petitioners filed applications under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 28 August 2017. Respondent No.2, the Revenue and Forest Irrigation Department, dismissed the applications on the ground that the filing date was unclear and therefore possibly outside the limitation period. The petitioners produced notices dated 27 February 2019 and 9 January 2019, with marginal endorsements confirming the 28 August 2017 filing date. The Court held that the department should not reject the applications merely on a procedural doubt about the filing date and must consider them on their merits. The writ petition was allowed, directing the department to verify the notices and decide the applications within twelve weeks of the order.
Issues considered
- Whether the department could lawfully dismiss the Section 28-A applications on the basis of an unclear filing date and alleged limitation.
- Whether the applications filed on 28 August 2017 fall within the limitation period prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 28-A
Subjects
- Land acquisition
- Section 28-A
- Limitation period
- Writ petition
- Administrative law
- Procedural fairness
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40573-DB
1 37.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
37 WRIT PETITION NO. 11019 OF 2026
ANKUSH KATHALRAO LANDE AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH REVENUE AND FOREST IRRIGATION
DEPT AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Akshara Sharad Madake a/w. Mr. Kale Abhijit
Babanrao (Through VC)
AGP for Respondent/State : Ms. Neha B. Kamble
…
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 01.09.2026
ORDER :
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of the parties.
2. It is the grievance of the petitioners that, they have submitted
applications under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
short, ‘the said Act’) on 28.08.2017. Respondent No.2 has disposed of
the applications on the ground that, the record of filing of the
applications by the petitioners is available in his office however, the
date on which the said applications are filed is not clear.
3. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners, learned AGP for
respondent/State and we have perused the record.
4. The petitioners have placed on record copies of the notices issued
by the office of respondent No.2, pursuant to the filing of applications
2 37.doc
under Section 28-A of the said Act by the petitioners. Copies of the
said notices are placed on record at Exh.B. The office of respondent
No.2 has issued notices on 27.02.2019,09.01.2019. The endorsement
in the margins of the applications show that the same are filed on
28.08.2017.
5. In the light of above, respondent No.2 ought to have decided the
said applications on merits and should not have disposed of the same
merely on the ground that, it is not clear whether the applications are
filed within limitation or not.
6. At the request of learned AGP, liberty is granted to respondent
No.2 to verify from his official record whether the notices annexed by
the petitioners, are really issued by his office.
7. In the light of above, the Writ Petition is allowed.
8. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the applications filed by
the petitioners, on its own merits, within a period of twelve (12)
weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J. )
vsj..
Checking your session…