Date of the Judgment: 12 December 2017
Citation: (2017) INSC 1062
Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., R. Banumathi, J.
What happens when a landowner applies for increased compensation under Section 28A of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but the court’s award that they are relying on is being appealed? The Supreme Court addressed this issue, clarifying the correct procedure in such cases. This judgment clarifies the timing and procedure for re-determination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 when the initial award is under appeal. The Supreme Court bench consisted of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi.
Case Background
The case revolves around land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State of Maharashtra. The initial notification for land acquisition under Section 4(1) of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on January 17, 1974. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation on June 4, 1977. The appellants, however, did not pursue the matter further under Section 18 of the Act. Other landowners, whose lands were also acquired under the same notification, sought a reference under Section 18, and the Reference Court enhanced the land value to Rs. 5,000 per acre on October 1, 1992. The appellants, then, filed an application under Section 28A of the Act on December 31, 1992, seeking similar enhancement.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 17, 1974 | Section 4(1) Notification issued for land acquisition. |
| June 4, 1977 | Land Acquisition Officer determines initial compensation. |
| October 1, 1992 | Reference Court enhances land value to Rs. 5,000 per acre in LAR Nos. 123 and 129 of 1983. |
| December 31, 1992 | Appellants file application under Section 28A seeking similar enhancement. |
| October 25, 2000 | Land Acquisition Collector passes an award under Section 28A, awarding compensation at Rs. 5,000 per acre. |
| March 23, 2009 | High Court disposes of appeals, granting compensation at Rs. 18,000 per acre. |
| May 27, 2009 | Appellants file fresh applications under Section 28A based on High Court judgment. |
| December 12, 2017 | Supreme Court delivers judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The initial compensation was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer on June 4, 1977. Some landowners sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, leading to an enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,000 per acre by the Reference Court on October 1, 1992. The appellants, who did not initially seek a reference, filed an application under Section 28A of the Act on December 31, 1992, seeking similar enhancement.
While the appellants’ Section 28A application was pending, the award of the Reference Court was challenged in appeals and cross-objections. The High Court disposed of these appeals on March 23, 2009, granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 18,000 per acre. However, before the High Court’s decision, the Land Acquisition Collector had already passed an award on October 25, 2000, on the appellants’ Section 28A application, awarding compensation at Rs. 5,000 per acre.
Following the High Court’s judgment, the appellants filed fresh applications under Section 28A on May 27, 2009, seeking enhancement based on the High Court’s rate of Rs. 18,000 per acre. The High Court dismissed the appellants’ writ petition, stating that Section 28A allows only one application, and successive applications are not permissible. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The core of this case revolves around Section 28A of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was inserted in 1984. This section allows landowners who did not seek a reference under Section 18 to apply for re-determination of compensation if the court has awarded a higher amount to other landowners whose lands were acquired under the same notification.
Section 28A of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 states:
“28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court . – (1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court: Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.”
The provision further outlines the process for the Collector to conduct an inquiry and make an award determining the compensation payable to the applicants. It also allows those who are not satisfied with the Collector’s award under Section 28A(2) to seek a reference to the court.
Arguments
The appellants argued that they were entitled to re-determination of compensation based on the High Court’s judgment, which awarded a higher compensation of Rs. 18,000 per acre. They contended that their initial application under Section 28A was decided by the Land Acquisition Collector while the appeals against the reference court’s award were pending.
The State argued that Section 28A of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 permits only one application for re-determination of compensation. According to the State, the appellants’ first application was already decided, and therefore, a second application was not maintainable.
The core contention of the appellants was that since the award of the Reference Court was under appeal when their application under Section 28A was decided by the Land Acquisition Collector, the Collector should have waited for the final judgment of the appellate court.
The innovativeness of the argument by the appellants lies in highlighting the procedural lapse by the Land Acquisition Collector in deciding the Section 28A application when the relied upon award was under appeal.
| Submissions | Appellants | Respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to Re-determination | ✓ Entitled to re-determination based on the High Court’s enhanced compensation of Rs. 18,000 per acre. | ✗ Not entitled to re-determination based on the High Court’s enhanced compensation. |
| Validity of First Application | ✓ The initial application under Section 28A was decided prematurely by the Collector, while appeals against the reference court’s award were pending. | ✗ The initial application under Section 28A was validly decided, and a second application is not maintainable. |
| Maintainability of Second Application | ✓ The second application is maintainable because the first application was decided prematurely and the Collector should have waited for the final judgment of the appellate court. | ✗ Section 28A allows only one application, and successive applications are not permissible. |
| Procedural Lapse by the Collector | ✓ The Land Acquisition Collector committed a procedural error by deciding the Section 28A application when the relied-upon award was under appeal. | ✗ The Collector acted correctly in deciding the first application. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:
- What is the course to be adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 28A of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, when the award based on which enhancement is sought is pending in appeal?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| What is the course to be adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 28A of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, when the award based on which enhancement is sought is pending in appeal? | The Collector should keep the Section 28A application pending until the appeal is decided. | The Supreme Court held that the Collector should not decide the application under Section 28A when the relied-upon award is under appeal. The Collector should wait for the final decision of the appellate court before determining the compensation under Section 28A. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| Babua Ram and others v. State of U.P. and another (1995) 2 SCC 689 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the issue of whether the Collector is bound to redetermine compensation when the award is pending in appeal. The Court reiterated that the Collector should stay his hands in the matter of redetermination of compensation till the appeal is finally disposed of and he should redetermine the compensation only on the basis of the final judgment and decree of the appellate forum. |
| U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd v. State of U.P. and others (1995) 2 SCC 766 | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated the principle laid down in Babua Ram that the application under Section 28A (1) should be kept pending till the appeal was disposed of. |
| Union of India and another v. Pradeep Kumari and others (1995) 2 SCC 736 | Supreme Court of India | Clarified that compensation under Section 28A could be availed of on the basis of any one of the awards that has been made by the court after coming into force of Section 28A provided that the application is made within the prescribed period of three months from the making of the award on the basis of which re-determination is sought. This case also laid down that only one application can be moved under Section 28A for redetermination of compensation by an applicant. |
| Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese and another v. Land Acquisition Collector (1996) 6 SCC 746 | Supreme Court of India | Explained the scheme of the Act and noted that Section 28A was under Part III of the Act. Further, Section 2(d) of the Act defines ‘court’ to mean principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction unless a special judicial officer is appointed. It was held that the three-month limitation period under Section 28A should be reckoned from the date of the award by the Court disposing of the reference under Section 18, and not the appellate court. |
| Union of India v. Munshi Ram (Dead) By Lrs. and others (2006) 4 SCC 538 | Supreme Court of India | Held that the compensation payable to the applicants under Section 28-A of the Act is the same which is finally payable to those claimants who sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. |
| Kendriya Karamchari Sehkari Grah Nirman Samiti Limited, Noida v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2009) 1 SCC 754 | Supreme Court of India | Held that the Collector was justified in not deciding the Section 28A application on account of pendency of an appeal before the High Court. It was specifically held that the Government Orders were in consonance with the law laid down in Babua Ram. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ entitlement to re-determination based on the High Court’s enhanced compensation. | The Court agreed that the appellants were entitled to re-determination based on the High Court’s judgment. However, the Court also stated that the second application for re-determination was not maintainable. |
| Validity of the first application under Section 28A. | The Court held that the first application was decided prematurely by the Collector, while appeals against the reference court’s award were pending. |
| Maintainability of the second application. | The Court held that the second application was not maintainable. |
| Procedural lapse by the Collector. | The Court found the Collector at fault for deciding the application when the matter was pending in appeal. |
The Supreme Court held that the Land Acquisition Collector should not have decided the Section 28A application when the appeals against the awards were pending.
The Court referred to Babua Ram and others v. State of U.P. and another [(1995) 2 SCC 689]* to reiterate that the Collector should stay his hands in the matter of redetermination of compensation till the appeal is finally disposed of and he should redetermine the compensation only on the basis of the final judgment and decree of the appellate forum.
The Court also referred to Union of India v. Munshi Ram (Dead) By Lrs. and others [(2006) 4 SCC 538]* to hold that the compensation payable to the applicants under Section 28-A of the Act is the same which is finally payable to those claimants who sought reference under Section 18 of the Act.
The Court clarified that while only a single application under Section 28A is maintainable as per Union of India and another v. Pradeep Kumari and others [(1995) 2 SCC 736]*, the Collector erred in deciding the application when the appeals were pending.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure procedural fairness and to avoid incongruous situations. The court emphasized that the Land Acquisition Collector should have waited for the final decision of the appellate court before deciding the Section 28A application. The court also highlighted that Section 28A is a beneficial provision and should be interpreted in a way that benefits the landowners.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Procedural fairness | 40% |
| Avoiding incongruous situations | 30% |
| Beneficial nature of Section 28A | 30% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court observed that the Collector should have kept the application pending until the appeals were decided. The Court noted that the Collector’s actions resulted in a situation where the appellants were not given the benefit of the enhanced compensation awarded by the High Court.
The Court stated, “Though there is no quarrel with the principle that only a single application is maintainable, in the instant case, unfortunately, the High Court omitted to take note of the fact that the appeals on the relied on awards were pending when the Section 28A application was decided.”
The Court also observed that, “It must also be kept in mind that Section 28A is a beneficial provision.”
The Court concluded, “However, since the Collector is also at fault in deciding the application when the matter was pending in appeal, we are of the view that in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the application dated 31.12.1992 should be considered afresh.”
The Supreme Court’s decision was a majority decision.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ When an application is filed under Section 28A of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Land Acquisition Collector must not decide on the application if the award on which the application is based is pending in appeal.
- ✓ The Land Acquisition Collector should wait for the final decision of the appellate court before determining the compensation under Section 28A.
- ✓ A second application under Section 28A is not maintainable. However, in cases where the first application was decided prematurely, the Collector is required to reconsider the application in light of the final appellate court judgment.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Land Acquisition Collector to reconsider the Section 28A application dated 31.12.1992 in light of the High Court’s judgment dated 23.03.2009. The Court also set aside the Collector’s order dated 25.10.2000. The Collector was directed to pass orders within three months from the date of presentation of a copy of the judgment by the appellants, and the consequential benefits were to be disbursed within another month.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Land Acquisition Collector must keep the application under Section 28A pending if the award on which the application is based is under appeal. This judgment clarifies the procedural aspect of Section 28A and ensures that landowners receive the benefit of the final decision of the appellate court. There is no change in the previous position of law, rather it reiterates the previous position and clarifies the procedure.
Conclusion
In the case of Bharatsingh vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court clarified that the Land Acquisition Collector should not decide an application under Section 28A of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, when the award on which the application is based is pending in appeal. The Court directed the Collector to reconsider the appellant’s application in light of the High Court’s judgment, emphasizing the beneficial nature of Section 28A and the need for procedural fairness.
Category
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- Section 28A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- Re-determination of Compensation
- Land Acquisition Compensation
- Reference Court
- Appellate Court
- Supreme Court Judgments
- Land Acquisition
- Compensation Law
- Civil Law
- Property Law
FAQ
Q: What is Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
A: Section 28A allows landowners who did not initially seek a reference to the court for enhanced compensation to apply for re-determination of compensation if the court has awarded a higher amount to other landowners whose lands were acquired under the same notification.
Q: What should a Land Acquisition Collector do when an application under Section 28A is filed, but the award on which the application is based is under appeal?
A: The Land Acquisition Collector should keep the application pending until the appeal is decided by the appellate court. The Collector should not decide the application until the final judgment of the appellate court.
Q: Can a landowner file multiple applications under Section 28A?
A: No, generally, only one application under Section 28A is maintainable. However, if the first application was decided prematurely, while the award was under appeal, the Collector is required to reconsider the application in light of the appellate court’s judgment.
Q: What does the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bharatsingh vs. State of Maharashtra mean for landowners?
A: This judgment clarifies the procedure for re-determination of compensation under Section 28A. It ensures that landowners receive the benefit of the final decision of the appellate court and highlights the importance of procedural fairness in land acquisition matters.