Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Banwari and others against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had set aside the order of the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) granting enhanced compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land of the appellants was acquired by notification dated 17th November 2004 for the Kundli Manesar Palwal Expressway, and compensation was awarded at Rs.12,50,000 per acre on 1st March 2006. The appellants did not seek a reference under Section 18. However, other similarly situated landowners filed a reference, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 17th January 2012. They appealed to the High Court in RFA No. 429 of 2013, and on 2nd May 2016, the High Court enhanced compensation to Rs.19,91,300 per acre. Within three months of this judgment, on 30th June 2016, the appellants filed an application under Section 28-A before the LAC, who on 15th September 2020 allowed the application and granted enhanced compensation. The respondent HSIIDC challenged this order before the High Court, which set it aside relying on its earlier judgment in CWP No. 8456 of 2020, which in turn relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat (2018) 16 SCC 445, holding that an application under Section 28-A can only be filed within three months from the award of the Reference Court under Section 18, not from the judgment of the appellate court. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in relying on Ramsingbhai because that decision did not consider the earlier three-judge bench decision in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari (1995) 2 SCC 736, which held that Section 28-A is a beneficent provision and must be construed liberally. In Pradeep Kumari, the Court held that the right to apply under Section 28-A arises from any award of the court under Part III, including a subsequent award, and the limitation of three months runs from the date of that award. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's judgment in RFA No. 429 of 2013 is an award under Part III read with Section 54, and the appellants filed their application within three months of that judgment. Therefore, the application was maintainable. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the LAC's order dated 15th September 2020, allowing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Redetermination of Compensation - Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Beneficent Provision - The provision is intended to remove inequality and benefit inarticulate and poor landowners who could not seek reference under Section 18. It must be construed liberally to advance its object. (Paras 8-10) B) Land Acquisition - Limitation for Application under Section 28-A - Three Months from Date of Award of Court - The phrase 'award of the court' in Section 28-A includes the judgment of the appellate court if it is the first determination of compensation in the acquisition, as the appellate court's judgment is also an award under Part III read with Section 54. (Paras 10-12) C) Land Acquisition - Conflict of Precedents - Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat (2018) 16 SCC 445 vs. Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari (1995) 2 SCC 736 - The latter, being a three-judge bench decision, holds that Section 28-A application can be based on a subsequent award of the Reference Court or appellate court, and the limitation runs from the date of such award. The former did not consider Pradeep Kumari and is per incuriam. (Paras 9-12) D) Land Acquisition - Application under Section 28-A - Maintainability - Where the appellants filed an application under Section 28-A within three months of the High Court's judgment in RFA No. 429 of 2013 (dated 2nd May 2016), which enhanced compensation for similarly situated landowners in the same acquisition, the application is maintainable. The LAC correctly allowed the application. (Paras 3.4-3.5, 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be filed within three months from the date of a judgment of the High Court (appellate court) under Section 54 of the Act, or only from the date of the award of the Reference Court under Section 18?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment dated 25th November 2021, and restored the order of the LAC dated 15th September 2020 granting enhanced compensation to the appellants.
Law Points
- Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 is a beneficent provision
- redetermination of compensation can be based on appellate court judgment if it arises from the same acquisition
- limitation period of three months runs from the date of the award of the Reference Court or the appellate court judgment if it is the first determination in the acquisition
