1. Background of Acquisition (Paras 1-2)

   • Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation Limited was the acquiring body for the Bori Medium Project in District Solapur.
   • Notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued in January 1998 and June 1999, respectively. The award under Section 11 was passed on October 30, 2000.
   • One of the landowners, Sidram Bamshetti Bharamshetti, challenged the award, and it was later settled by a compromised award in December 2019 under the National Lok Adalat.

2. Re-determination of Compensation (Paras 3-4)

   • Following the award, respondents filed an application under Section 28-A of the LA Act for re-determination of compensation based on the Lok Adalat’s award. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) granted the application in August 2021 and re-determined the compensation, including interest.

3. Petition by Acquiring Body (Paras 4-5)

   • The acquiring body (the petitioner) challenged the re-determined award, raising issues such as the lack of inquiry under Section 28-A(2), non-issuance of notice, and the inclusion of administrative and establishment expenses.

4. Preliminary Objections (Paras 5-6)

   • The respondent's counsel raised a preliminary objection under Section 28-A(3), arguing that the petitioner (the acquiring body) cannot challenge the award through a writ petition as it is not permitted under the LA Act.

5. Acquiring Body’s Stand (Paras 6-7)

   • The petitioner argued that Section 28-A does not allow re-determination based on a Lok Adalat’s consent award and that the provisions for filing a reference are not applicable to such cases.

Key Legal Issues:

1. Whether the Acquiring Body Can Seek Reference under Section 28-A(3)
   • The court examined whether the acquiring body, which is barred from seeking a reference under Section 18, could invoke Section 28-A(3) for re-determination of compensation.
2. Scope of Section 28-A(3)
   • The court considered whether the scope of Section 28-A extends to references based on compromised awards in Lok Adalats.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

   • Deals with re-determination of compensation based on a court’s award. The section allows landowners who have not sought a reference under Section 18 to seek re-determination if one landowner successfully obtains higher compensation.

2. Section 50(2) of the LA Act:

   • Bars the acquiring body from seeking a reference but allows them to participate in proceedings to determine compensation.

3. Article 227 of the Constitution of India:

   • Allows judicial review of administrative decisions and awards under land acquisition cases.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning (Para-wise):

1. Legislative Intent of Section 28-A (Para 8-10)

   • The court held that Section 28-A was enacted to benefit landowners who were unable to seek references under Section 18 due to their financial or logistical limitations. Allowing acquiring bodies to seek a reference under Section 28-A(3) would defeat the legislative purpose.

2. The Role of Section 50(2) (Paras 11-13)

   • The court ruled that the bar under Section 50(2), which prohibits acquiring bodies from seeking a reference under Section 18, extends to Section 28-A(3) as well. Section 28-A cannot be interpreted to provide a backdoor for acquiring bodies to challenge compensation awards.

3. Re-determination Based on Lok Adalat Awards (Para 14-16)

   • The petitioner’s argument that Lok Adalat awards cannot serve as a basis for re-determination was rejected. The court held that the acquiring body’s challenge did not fall within the permissible scope of a reference under Section 18 and was not maintainable.

4. Article 226/227 Remedies for Acquiring Body (Paras 17-19)

   • While the acquiring body is barred from seeking a reference under Section 28-A(3), the court clarified that they could still invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or 227 for judicial review of the compensation determination.

5. No Appeal Against Re-determined Compensation (Para 20-23)

   • The court emphasized that the acquiring body cannot appeal against the re-determined compensation under Section 28-A as the Collector is not considered a "Court" under the LA Act.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Bar on Acquiring Bodies Under Section 28-A(3)

   • The court ruled that acquiring bodies cannot seek a reference under Section 28-A(3) as the provision is intended to benefit landowners and not the acquiring bodies. This limitation is consistent with Section 50(2), which precludes acquiring bodies from seeking references under Section 18.

2. Right to Judicial Review Under Article 226/227

   • The acquiring body can challenge the award through judicial review under Article 226/227 of the Constitution but cannot seek a reference or appeal under Section 28-A.

3. No Appeal Against Collector’s Award Under Section 28-A

   • Since the Collector is not considered a court under the LA Act, no appeal can be filed by the acquiring body against the re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the acquiring body's petition, holding that the acquiring body cannot seek a reference under Section 28-A(3) and that the bar under Section 50(2) applies equally to re-determination proceedings. The proper remedy for the acquiring body is judicial review under Article 226/227.

Subjects:

• Land Acquisition
• Section 28-A
• Lok Adalat Award
• Judicial Review
• Article 227