Case Note & Summary
The judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay addressed a batch of writ petitions arising from land acquisition proceedings for the public purpose of 'Submergence of Ujjani Project'. The petitioners were landowners whose lands were acquired under a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 9 October 1969. The Special Land Acquisition Officer published a common award on 30 November 1974 under Section 11, determining compensation of Rs.12,81,341-26 for the acquired area. Some claimants, including Keshav Krishaj Ajotikar and others, aggrieved by the award, applied to the Collector under Section 18 for enhancement, which was referred as Reference Application No.8 of 1979. The Extra Joint District Judge, Pune, by judgment and order dated 15 February 1984, modified the award, granting enhanced compensation of Rs.72,807.07 with interest at 4% per annum from date of dispossession till payment. During the pendency of that reference, the Central Government introduced a bill on 30 September 1982 to amend the Act, culminating in the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, which came into effect on 24 September 1984. The amendment inserted Section 28A providing for re-determination of compensation on the basis of the award of the court, along with other provisions amending Section 23 and related sections. The legislative intent was to address inequality in compensation among similarly situated landowners, especially poor and inarticulate owners who did not avail the reference remedy under Section 18. The writ petitions, filed in 2009, raised the question whether Section 28A(1) applies when the land acquisition award is a modified award of the Reference Court. The learned counsel for the parties agreed on the commonality of facts, and Writ Petition No.6747 of 2009 was treated as the lead petition. The court noted the short but interesting question and proceeded to examine the statutory provisions and legislative history. No final decision or operative directions are discernible from the provided excerpt, as the judgment text is incomplete. The excerpt ends with the court quoting the relevant provisions of the 1984 Amendment Act and discussing the object of Section 28A.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Redetermination of Compensation - Section 28A(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The core question before the High Court was whether the benefit of re-determination of compensation under Section 28A(1) extends to cases where the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer was modified by the Reference Court under Section 18. The court was required to interpret the scope of Section 28A(1) in light of its legislative intent to remove inequality in compensation among landowners under the same acquisition notification. (Paras 1-5) B) Land Acquisition - Legislative Intent - Sections 18, 23, 28A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Sections 15, 18, 19, 30 of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 - The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 1982 Bill indicated that poor and inarticulate landowners often did not avail the right of reference under Section 18, causing considerable inequality in compensation. The 1984 Amendment Act introduced Section 28A to provide an opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose land is covered under the same notification to seek re-determination of compensation once any one of them obtained higher compensation from the reference court. The court was examining the applicability of these provisions to modified awards. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 28A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is applicable when the land acquisition award is a modified award of the Reference Court.
Law Points
- Section 28A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 provides for re-determination of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court
- Section 18 of the Act provides for reference to court for enhancement
- Section 23 as amended by 1984 Amendment Act provides for additional amount at 12% per annum on market value
- 1984 Amendment Act inserted Section 28A to ensure equitable compensation among similarly situated landowners
- Statement of Objects and Reasons emphasizes inequality in compensation due to poor landowners not seeking reference
