The Bombay High Court’s Kolhapur bench has stepped in to protect the rights of an elderly farmer whose plea for higher land acquisition compensation was dismissed on what the court called a purely technical reason. Setting aside a 2019 order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the court made it clear that procedure cannot defeat justice-especially in cases involving farmers who have lost their only source of livelihood.
The judgment was delivered on December 23, 2025, in a writ petition filed by 96-year-old Tukaram Janaba Patil from Kolhapur district.
Background of the Case
Patil’s agricultural land in village Kalkundri, Chandgad taluka, was acquired nearly three decades ago for a minor irrigation tank project at Kitwad. An award passed on March 31, 1999 granted him compensation of ₹77,700.
Read also:- Supreme Court Backs Merit in Court Jobs: Reserved Candidates Can't Be Shut Out of Open Category
However, another landowner whose land was acquired under the same notification later succeeded in getting enhanced compensation from a reference court in August 2008. That decision opened a legal window for similarly affected landowners to seek the same benefit under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894-a provision meant to ensure equal compensation for landowners in identical situations.
Patil applied for re-determination of compensation on November 1, 2008, well within the three-month time limit prescribed by law. But his application was rejected by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in February 2019, citing the absence of a certified copy of the earlier reference court judgment.
The State defended the rejection, arguing that submitting a certified copy of the reference court’s judgment was mandatory. Without it, the officer claimed, the authority could not verify limitation or proceed further.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Rules CIDCO Agreement Was Only a License, Quashes ₹26 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand
The order effectively shut the door on Patil’s claim without examining whether he was actually entitled to higher compensation.
Court’s Observations
The division bench of Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar took a firm view against this approach.
The court noted that Patil’s application was undisputedly filed within time. Even without calculating the days taken to obtain a certified copy, the limitation requirement was clearly satisfied.
“The application was well within time. What mattered was the merit of the claim, not a hyper-technical objection,” the bench observed.
Relying on Supreme Court rulings, the High Court underlined that Section 28A is a beneficial provision, meant to help landowners who may not have the resources or legal awareness to immediately challenge compensation awards.
The bench remarked that rejecting such claims merely for want of certified copies amounted to an overly technical approach that defeated the purpose of the law. “Procedure must facilitate justice, not frustrate it,” the court said.
Taking note of Patil’s age and background, the judges added that farmers displaced by compulsory acquisition often lack legal support and should not be treated as adversaries by the State.
Read also:- Big Relief for Wife: Allahabad High Court Orders Maintenance From Application Date
The Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the 2019 order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The court directed that Patil’s application for enhanced compensation be reconsidered strictly on its merits.
The authority was instructed not to reject the application again on the grounds of limitation or absence of a certified copy and to decide the matter within sixteen weeks. Patil was also permitted to submit additional documents to support his claim.
With this, the writ petition stood allowed, reinforcing the principle that substantive rights cannot be denied on procedural shortcuts.
Case Title: Tukaram Janaba Patil vs The Collector, Kolhapur & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 12769 of 2022
Case Type: Land Acquisition – Compensation Enhancement
Decision Date: December 23, 2025
