Land Acquisition Act 1894 | Re-determination Of Compensation Under S. 28A Can Be Sought Based On High Court's Enhacement : Supreme Court

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that a claim for re-determination of enhanced compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be denied merely because it was based on the High Court's decision to enhance compensation instead of the Reference Court's decision under Section 18 of the Act.

The Court clarified that to claim re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A, it is not necessary to rely solely on the Reference Court's decision. A party can also seek re-determination based on a High Court decision that increases the compensation.

The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing an appeal filed against the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision dismissing the appellant's claim for enhanced compensation. The bench noted that an application for enhanced compensation was not based on the Reference Court's decision but the High Court's decision making him ineligible to claim enhanced compensation.

Briefly put, in 2004, the appellants' land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, of 1894, for the Kundli-Manesar-Palwal Expressway project. They were initially awarded compensation of ₹12,50,000 per acre. However, some landowners challenged this amount, and, in 2016, the High Court increased the compensation to ₹19,91,300 per acre.

The appellants, who had not filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act earlier, later sought redetermination of their compensation under Section 28-A, based on the High Court's enhanced award. In 2020, the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) approved their request and granted them the same enhanced compensation.

The respondent, HSIIDC, challenged the LAC's decision in the High Court, arguing that the appellants' Section 28-A application was invalid.

The High Court agreed with HSIIDC's contention, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Ramsingbhai Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat (2018), which limited Section 28-A to awards made by the Reference Court and excluded those made by appellate courts.

On the contrary, the appellants argued that the High Court erred in placing reliance on Ramsingbhai Jerambhai's case as the case doesn't hold good when it comes to a true interpretation of Section 28-A of the Act. Instead, they placed reliance on the co-ordinate bench judgment of Union of India and Another v. Pradeep Kumari and Others (1995) where the Court held that Section 28-A is intended to benefit landowners who did not file a reference earlier, even if the enhanced compensation arises from subsequent judgments by appellate courts.

The short question that falls for the Court's consideration was whether the benefit of enhanced compensation under Section 28-A applies to awards made by appellate courts like the High Court.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Gavai J. emphasized that the true purpose of Section 28-A is to remove inequalities and to provide fair and equal treatment to landowners, including those who initially did not seek reference for enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Act.

The Court observed that the High Court had ignored the principle established in Pradeep Kumari, where Section 28-A was broadly interpreted to benefit landowners who had not filed a reference under Section 18 but sought higher compensation based on an enhanced award, even if that award was made by an appellate court or High Court.

Also, the Court reasoned that since both the cases were decided by the bench of equal strength therefore, Pradeep Kumari's judgment because of being decided earlier than Ramsingbhai Jerambhai's judgment would hold good, and the subsequent decision would be rendered per-incuriam.

“As already discussed hereinabove, the provisions of Section 28-A(1) of the 1894 Act have been elaborately considered by a three Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumari and Others (supra). In the said case, it has been held that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Section 28-A would reveal that the object underlying the enactment of the said provision is to remove inequality in the payment of compensation for same or similar quality of land. It has been held that the said provision is for giving benefit to inarticulate and poor people not being able to take advantage of the right of reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act. It has been held that this is sought to be achieved by providing an opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose land is covered by the same notification to seek redetermination once any of them has obtained orders for payment of higher compensation from the reference court under Section 18 of the Act. The same benefit would be available to the other landholders under Section 28-A. It has been held that Section 28-A being a beneficent legislation enacted in order to give relief to the inarticulate and poor people, the principle of interpretation which would be required to be adopted is the one which advances the policy of the legislation to extend the benefit rather than a construction which has the effect of curtailing the benefit conferred by it.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Piyush Sharma, AOR Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv.

Case Title: BANWARI AND OTHERS VERSUS HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (HSIIDC) AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 995

Click here to read/download the judgment