SANDIPAN GYANDEO LATEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:44615-DB


                                                {1}                    wp1831-24.doc
                 drp
                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  WRIT PETITION NO.1831 OF 2024

                 Sandipan Gyandeo Late                                PETITIONER

                         VERSUS

                 The State of Maharashtra and Others                RESPONDENTS

                                                .......
                 Mr. S. D. Jayabhar h/f Mr. D. R. Jayabhar, Advocate for Petitioner
                 Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondent - State
                                                ....…
                                                AND
                                 WRIT PETITION NO.1853 OF 2024

                 Udhav Nivruttirao Kavhale                            PETITIONER

                         VERSUS

                 The State of Maharashtra and Others               RESPONDENTS
                                                .......
                 Mr. S. D. Jayabhar h/f Mr. D. R. Jayabhar, Advocate for Petitioner
                 Mrs. Saie S. Joshi, AGP for Respondent - State
                                                ....…

                              [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, &
                                       ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.]

                                     DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026

                 ORDER :

                 1.      This Petition seeks direction to Respondent No.2 to

                 consider the application made by the Petitioners on 5 th October,

                 2017 as an application under section 28 (A) (3) of the Land

                 Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same be decided within stipulated

                 time.
                                    {2}                 wp1831-24.doc


2.    Learned AGP has strenuously opposed the Petition by

relying on the affidavit in reply, wherein it is stated that the

Petitioners had made Reference under section 28-A (1) of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Deputy Collector, Land

Acquisition,   Minor   Irrigation    Works   (MIW),   Jalna   for   re-

determination of the amount of the compensation on the basis of

the Award of the Reference Court dated 10th March, 2011 passed

in Land Acquisition Reference No.116 of 2010. On the basis of

the same, compensation was re-determined on 24 th October,

2011, on merits and the enhanced compensation amount was

paid to the Petitioner on 5th July, 2013. He, therefore, submits

that the application filed by the Petitioners under section 28-A

(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is already decided and the

Petitioners are not entitled to file second application under

section 28 (A) of the Act.


3.    We have heard learned Advocate for the Petitioners and

learned AGP for the State. Perused the Writ Petition memo and

the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondents and the citation

relied on by the Petitioners.


4.    Learned Advocate for the Petitioners has rightly placed

reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in “Andanayya and
                                    {3}                        wp1831-24.doc

Others V/s Deputy Chief Engineer and Others” AIR 2026 SC

1632, wherein it is held :

     “25. From the analysis made hereinabove on the relevant
     provisions of the Act and the judgments relied upon by the parties,
     we are inclined to hold that even a second application made under
     Section 28 A of the Act after the award passed by the High Court is
     maintainable and entitled to be considered by the Collector / LAO.
     WE are of the view that, entertaining an earlier application filed
     under Section 28-A of the Act on the basis of the award of the
     Reference Court followed by the receipt of money, shall not act as a
     bar for the same applicant to seek further re-determination of
     compensation on the basis of the award passed by the High Court or
     this Court.”

5.    The above observations are squarely applicable to the facts

of the present case. Hence, the Petitions deserve to be allowed.

In the result, following order:

                                  ORDER

1.   Writ Petitions are allowed.


2.   Respondent No.2 is directed to decide the Application of
     the Petitioners dated 5th October, 2017 as filed under
     section 28 (A) of the Land Acquisition Act and decide the
     same in the light of the decision of this Court in First
     Appeal     No.   2733     of   2013     and     pay    the   enhanced
     compensation to the Petitioners within a period of 12
     weeks from the date of decision of the said Application.



[ ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ]                       [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ]
       JUDGE                                            JUDGE

drp/wp1831-24.doc