Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act in determining compensation: Banwari and Others vs. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 10 December 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 951

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Can a landowner seek enhanced compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, based on a High Court judgment, even if it’s not the first such judgment? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question, clarifying the timeline and scope of Section 28A. This judgment clarifies the rights of landowners who did not initially seek a reference for enhanced compensation but are later entitled to it based on a High Court order. The bench comprised Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, with the judgment authored by Justice B.R. Gavai.

Case Background

The case revolves around the acquisition of land belonging to the appellants in village Majri, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, for the Kundli Manesar Palwal Expressway. The acquisition was initiated through a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 17th November 2004. An award was passed on 1st March 2006, determining compensation at Rs. 12,50,000 per acre.

Dissatisfied with the compensation, some landowners, similarly situated to the appellants, filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, before the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar. This reference was dismissed on 17th January 2012. Subsequently, these landowners filed a Regular First Appeal (RFA) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which was allowed on 2nd May 2016, enhancing the compensation to Rs. 19,91,300 per acre along with statutory benefits.

Following the High Court’s decision, the appellants, who had not initially sought a reference, filed an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, before the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC), Jhajjar, on 30th June 2016. The LAC, on 15th September 2020, granted the appellants the enhanced compensation based on the High Court’s judgment. However, the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) challenged this order in a writ petition before the High Court, which was allowed, setting aside the LAC’s order.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court, in its impugned judgment, relied on its earlier decision in “Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Smt. Shanti and Others,” which in turn cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat and Another [ (2018) 16 SCC 445 ]. This earlier judgment held that an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, must be filed within three months from the date of the Reference Court’s judgment under Section 18, not from the date of a High Court or Supreme Court judgment.

The High Court thus set aside the order of the LAC, which had granted enhanced compensation to the appellants based on the High Court’s judgment in the RFA. This led to the appellants approaching the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This section provides a mechanism for landowners who did not initially seek a reference under Section 18 to claim enhanced compensation based on a court award to similarly situated landowners. The relevant part of 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 the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.”

This provision aims to ensure that all landowners affected by the same acquisition notification receive equal compensation, addressing potential inequalities arising from some landowners not pursuing legal remedies initially. The Supreme Court has previously recognized this provision as a beneficial one intended to help inarticulate and poor people who may not have the resources to challenge the initial compensation award.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the High Court erred in relying on the judgment in Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat and Another [(2018) 16 SCC 445 ], as it did not consider the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Another v. Pradeep Kumari and Others [(1995) 2 SCC 736].
• They contended that the application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, should be considered within three months from any court award, including a High Court judgment, that enhances compensation for similarly situated landowners.
• The appellants emphasized that the purpose of Section 28A is to ensure equal compensation for all landowners affected by the same acquisition notification.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the High Court correctly relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat and Another [(2018) 16 SCC 445 ].
• They contended that Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, allows redetermination of compensation only based on the award of the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and not on the basis of a judgment of the High Court or Supreme Court.
• They argued that the application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, must be filed within three months from any judgment of the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arising from the same acquisition but not from the date of judgment of this Court or the High Court.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can be made within three months from the date of the judgment of the High Court in the first appeal, enhancing the compensation, or whether it has to be within three months from the date of the award of the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Union of India and Another v. Pradeep Kumari and Others [(1995) 2 SCC 736] – Supreme Court of India: This case held that the limitation for moving an application under Section 28A begins from the date of the award on the basis of which redetermination of compensation is sought. It emphasized the beneficial nature of Section 28A.
• Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat and Another [(2018) 16 SCC 445] – Supreme Court of India: This case held that the application under Section 28A must be filed within three months from the date of the award passed by the Reference Court under Part III of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
• Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese v. LAO [(1996) 6 SCC 746] – Supreme Court of India: This case was referred to in Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai to support the proposition that the appellate courts are not within the purview of Section 28A.
• Bharatsing v. State of Maharashtra [(2018) 11 SCC 92] – Supreme Court of India: This case was referred to in Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai, which surveyed the decisions on the issue and reiterated the legal principle.
• National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others [(2017) 16 SCC 680] – Supreme Court of India: This case discussed the principle of per incuriam and the binding nature of earlier decisions by benches of equal strength.
• Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra [(2014) 16 SCC 623] – Supreme Court of India: This case correctly lays down the principle that discipline demanded by a precedent or the disqualification or diminution of a decision on the application of the per incuriam rule is of great importance.
• Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the notification for land acquisition.
• Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the Collector’s award of compensation.
• Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the reference to the court for enhanced compensation.
• Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the redetermination of compensation based on a court award.
• Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with appeals to the High Court.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Union of India and Another v. Pradeep Kumari and Others [(1995) 2 SCC 736]*: The Court followed this judgment, stating it correctly interpreted Section 28A. It emphasized that the limitation for moving an application under Section 28A begins from the date of the award on the basis of which redetermination of compensation is sought.
• Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat and Another [(2018) 16 SCC 445]*: The Court overruled this judgment, stating it did not consider the earlier view in Pradeep Kumari and was therefore per incuriam.

The Court observed that in Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai, it was held that “the judgment of the appellate court is not within the purview of Section 28-A”. However, the Court noted that this judgment did not consider the earlier judgment in Pradeep Kumari. The Court emphasized that “the object underlying the enactment of Section 28-A is to remove inequality in the payment of compensation for same or similar quality of land arising on account of 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.” The Court also stated that “in relation to beneficent legislation, the law is well-settled that while construing the provisions of such a legislation the court should adopt a construction 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.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• Beneficial Interpretation: The Court emphasized the need to interpret Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as a beneficial provision intended to remove inequalities in compensation for similar lands.
• Earlier Precedent: The Court prioritized the earlier judgment in Pradeep Kumari, which had already established that the limitation period for Section 28A begins from the date of the award on the basis of which redetermination of compensation is sought.
• Per Incuriam: The Court found that the judgment in Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai was per incuriam as it failed to consider the earlier judgment in Pradeep Kumari.
• Object of the Act: The Court reiterated that the object of Section 28A is to ensure that all landowners affected by the same acquisition notification receive equal compensation, especially benefiting inarticulate and poor landowners.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Timeline for Section 28A Applications: Landowners can apply for redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within three months from the date of any court award (including a High Court judgment) that enhances compensation for similarly situated landowners.
• Beneficial Interpretation: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Section 28A is a beneficial provision and should be interpreted to advance its purpose of ensuring equal compensation for all landowners.
• Precedent: The judgment in Pradeep Kumari is the correct position of law, and the judgment in Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai has been overruled as per incuriam.
• Equal Compensation: The decision aims to remove inequalities in compensation, ensuring that all landowners affected by the same acquisition notification receive similar benefits.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s judgment and upheld the order of the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) dated 15th September 2020, which had granted enhanced compensation to the appellants.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can be made within three months from the date of any court award, including a High Court judgment, that enhances compensation for similarly situated landowners. This clarifies the scope and timeline for invoking Section 28A and reaffirms the beneficial nature of the provision, ensuring equal compensation for all landowners affected by the same acquisition notification. The judgment overrules the position taken in Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai, reinstating the view taken in Pradeep Kumari.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Banwari and Others vs. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) and Another clarifies that landowners can seek enhanced compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, based on a High Court judgment, provided they apply within three months of the judgment. The Court overruled its earlier judgment in Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai, reinforcing the beneficial nature of Section 28A and ensuring equal compensation for all landowners. This decision provides much-needed clarity on the interpretation of Section 28A and protects the rights of landowners who may not have initially sought a reference.