Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act in compensation cases: Ramsingbhai vs. State of Gujarat (24 April 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 24 April 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 368

Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., Navin Sinha, J.

Can a landowner seek a redetermination of compensation based on a judgment from a higher court? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, clarifying the scope of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This judgment clarifies that the redetermination of compensation under Section 28A is based on the award passed by the Reference Court, not the judgment of the appellate courts. The three-judge bench, comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Navin Sinha, delivered this judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around an appeal filed by Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai, the appellant, against the State of Gujarat and another respondent. The appellant sought a redetermination of compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The core issue was whether the appellant could claim a redetermination of compensation based on a judgment of the High Court passed in appeal under Section 54 of the Act.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant sought a redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, based on a judgment of the High Court passed under Section 54 of the Act. The Supreme Court noted that the redetermination under Section 28A is available only in respect of an “Award” passed by the “court” under Part III of the Act, which includes Sections 18 to 28A. The “court” here refers to a principal civil court of original jurisdiction, as defined under Section 3(d) of the Act.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision under consideration is Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which deals with the redetermination of compensation based on the award of the Court.

Section 28A(1) 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 Supreme Court emphasized that the “court” referred to in Section 28A is the principal civil court of original jurisdiction, not the appellate courts under Section 54 of the Act. The appellate courts operate under Part VIII of the Act, while the redetermination applies only to awards passed by the Reference Court under Part III of the Act.

Arguments

The appellant argued that they were entitled to a redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, based on the judgment of the High Court passed under Section 54 of the Act.

The State of Gujarat contended that the redetermination under Section 28A is only applicable to the award passed by the Reference Court under Part III of the Act, not the judgments passed by the appellate courts under Part VIII of the Act.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for redetermination of compensation can be filed within a period of 3 months from the date of judgment of the High Court or Supreme Court passed in appeal under Section 54 of the Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese & another v. Land Acquisition Collector & another (1996) 6 SCC 746: This case clarified that the “court” referred to in Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is the principal civil court of original jurisdiction and not the appellate court.

Bharatsing and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others (2017) SCC Online SC 1453: This recent judgment surveyed the decisions on this issue and reiterated the legal principle that Section 28A applies only to the award of the Reference Court.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese & another v. Land Acquisition Collector & another [(1996) 6 SCC 746]* which clarified that the “court” in Section 28A refers to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction, not appellate courts.
• The Supreme Court also followed Bharatsing and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others [(2017) SCC Online SC 1453]* which reiterated the legal principle that Section 28A applies only to the award of the Reference Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the clear language of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which specifies that redetermination of compensation is based on the award of the “court” under Part III of the Act. The Court emphasized that the “court” referred to in Section 28A is the principal civil court of original jurisdiction, not the appellate courts under Section 54 of the Act.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the interpretation of Section 28A and clarified that the provision is specific to the award passed by the Reference Court, and not the appellate court. The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the High Court’s judgment under Section 54 should be the basis for redetermination under Section 28A.

The Supreme Court stated:

“It is clear from the opening words of the provision that the redetermination under Section 28A is available only in respect of an “Award” passed by the “court” under Part III of the Act, comprising Sections 18 to 28A (both inclusive).”

“The “court” referred to in Section 28A of the Act is the court as defined under Section 3(d) to mean “… a principal civil court of original jurisdiction …”. Thus, the judgment of the appellate court is not within the purview of Section 28A.”

“It is also to be noted that the appellate courts under Section 54 are under Part VIII of the Act whereas the redetermination is only in respect of the Award passed by the Reference Court under Part III of the Act.”

Key Takeaways

• Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, allows for the redetermination of compensation based on the award of the Reference Court (principal civil court of original jurisdiction).
• The judgments of appellate courts (High Court or Supreme Court) under Section 54 of the Act cannot be the basis for redetermination under Section 28A.
• Landowners seeking redetermination of compensation must apply within three months of the Reference Court’s award.
• The Collector must wait for the final decision of higher courts before awarding compensation as per the modified verdict.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case, except to dismiss the appeal.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is based on the award of the Reference Court, not the judgments of appellate courts. This clarifies the scope of Section 28A and reiterates the settled legal position. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the interpretation of Section 28A.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ramsingbhai vs. State of Gujarat clarifies that Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, applies specifically to awards made by the Reference Court and not to judgments of appellate courts. This ruling reinforces the established legal position and provides clarity on the process for seeking redetermination of compensation in land acquisition cases.