Supreme Court Rejects Application Under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act Due to Limitation Issues. The court held that the limitation for invoking Section 28A begins from the date of the Reference Court's award, not from an appellate order.

In Favour of Accused
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from an application filed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the respondents, whose predecessors had their lands acquired in 1977. The respondents sought to invoke Section 28A after a High Court decision in a related appeal in 2022, which the appellants contested on grounds of maintainability and limitation. The High Court had previously ruled that benefits under Section 28A could arise from any award made after the introduction of the section, not just the first award. The Supreme Court analyzed various precedents, including Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari and Banwari v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation, to clarify that the limitation for invoking Section 28A begins from the date of the Reference Court's award. The court found that the respondents' application was filed too late, as it was based on an appellate order rather than a direct award from the Reference Court. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and rejecting the application under Section 28A, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for such applications.

Headnote

A) Land Acquisition - Application under Section 28A - Limitation Period - The limitation for filing an application under Section 28A commences from the date of the award made by the Reference Court, not from an appellate order. The court held that the application was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the three-month period from the relevant award date (Paras 35-35).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act was maintainable given the circumstances of the case and the timing of the application.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and rejecting the application under Section 28A of the Act of 1894, emphasizing that the limitation for such applications begins from the date of the Reference Court's award.

Law Points

  • Land Acquisition
  • Section 28A
  • Limitation Period
  • Successive Awards
  • Reference Court
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (SC) (09) 74

Civil Appeal No. 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18801 of 2025)

2026-09-21

K. Vinod Chandran, J., J. B. Pardiwala

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority & Anr.

Rajveer Singh & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Remedy Sought

Respondents sought enhancement of compensation under Section 28A

Filing Reason

Application filed after a High Court decision in a related appeal

Previous Decisions

High Court allowed application based on interpretation of Section 28A

Issues

Whether the application under Section 28A was maintainable given the timing of the application Whether the limitation period for invoking Section 28A commenced from the Reference Court's award or an appellate order

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the application was barred by limitation as it was based on an appellate order Respondents contended that successive awards should give rise to fresh cause of action under Section 28A

Ratio Decidendi

The limitation for invoking Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 commences from the date of the Reference Court's award, not from an appellate order.

Judgment Excerpts

The limitation for moving an application under Section 28A will begin to run only from the date of the award, on the basis of which, redetermination of compensation is sought. We hence, allow the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and rejecting the application under Section 28 - A of the Act of 1894.

Procedural History

The respondents filed an application under Section 28A after a High Court decision in a related appeal. The application was rejected by the Collector as not maintainable, leading to the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 28A, Section 4(1), Section 11, Section 18, Section 54
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Reviews Interim Injunction in Bottling Agreement and Trade Mark Dispute; Division Bench Restrained Licensee from Dealing with Competing Brands. Negative Covenant in 1993 Agreement and Unauthorized Share Transfer to Pepsi Affiliates Form...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal and Remands Canteen Workers' Absorption Case to High Court for Fresh Consideration. The Court found that material documents were not examined by the lower courts, necessitating a remand for fresh adjudication on merits.