Land Acquisition Compensation: Supreme Court Directs Collector to Reconsider Section 28A Application
The Supreme Court directed the Land Acquisition Collector to reconsider an earlier application for re-determination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Collector had decided that application while the reference court award relied upon by the landowners was still under appeal.
The Court recognised that successive applications under Section 28A are generally impermissible. However, in the special circumstances of this case, the original application dated 31 December 1992 had to be reconsidered after the appellate decision of 23 March 2009. The Collector's order dated 25 October 2000 was set aside, with amounts already paid to be adjusted.
Background of the land acquisition dispute
A Bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi considered the procedure a Land Acquisition Collector should follow when an application for re-determination under Section 28A is founded on a reference court award that remains subject to appeal.
The acquisition began with a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issued on 17 January 1974. The Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation on 4 June 1977. The appellants did not seek a reference under Section 18 at that stage.
Other landowners covered by the same acquisition notification sought judicial reference. On 1 October 1992, the Second Additional District Judge, Aurangabad, in LAR Nos. 123 and 129 of 1983, increased the land value to Rs. 5,000 per acre, compared with the earlier rates of Rs. 3,000 or Rs. 3,500 per acre.
Relying on that award, the appellants applied for re-determination on 31 December 1992 under Section 28A, within the statutory three-month period applicable to their application.
Chronology of the proceedings
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 17 January 1974 | Section 4(1) acquisition notification issued. |
| 4 June 1977 | Land Acquisition Officer determined the initial compensation. |
| 1 October 1992 | Reference Court fixed compensation at Rs. 5,000 per acre in LAR Nos. 123 and 129 of 1983. |
| 31 December 1992 | Appellants filed their original Section 28A application. |
| 25 October 2000 | Collector re-determined compensation at Rs. 5,000 per acre, although appeals concerning the reference award remained pending. |
| 23 March 2009 | Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, enhanced compensation to Rs. 18,000 per acre in First Appeal Nos. 569 and 570 of 1997. |
| 27 May 2009 | Appellants filed a further Section 28A application based on the appellate judgment. |
| 12 December 2017 | Supreme Court directed fresh consideration of the original application and set aside the Collector's 2000 order. |
Why the second application was rejected
The later application dated 27 May 2009 was based on the High Court's enhancement of compensation to Rs. 18,000 per acre. The High Court rejected the landowners' writ petition on the ground that Section 28A did not permit repeated applications whenever compensation was increased in subsequent proceedings.
The Supreme Court agreed with the general rule against successive applications, referring to the principle discussed in Pradeep Kumari. But it distinguished the present case because the Collector had prematurely disposed of the first application, despite the pending appeals against the reference award upon which it was based.
Supreme Court's reasoning and directions
The Supreme Court treated Section 28A as a beneficial provision designed to extend an opportunity for re-determination to eligible landowners who had not themselves sought a reference. In these particular circumstances, the Collector should have awaited the outcome of the appeals before deciding the original application.
The Court therefore directed the Collector to reconsider the 31 December 1992 application in light of the Bombay High Court judgment dated 23 March 2009, in First Appeal Nos. 569 and 570 of 1997. The Collector's order dated 25 October 2000 was set aside.
The Collector was required to pass a fresh order within three months from presentation of the Supreme Court judgment by the appellants, and consequential benefits were to be disbursed within a further one month. Any compensation already paid was to be adjusted. These were directions in the 2017 case, not a general deadline applicable to every land acquisition matter.
Relevant legal provisions explained
Section 4(1), Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Provided for a preliminary notification identifying land needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose. The common notification was relevant to identifying landowners eligible to seek re-determination.
Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Enabled a person interested who had not accepted the Collector's award to request a reference to the competent court on matters such as measurement, compensation, entitlement or apportionment, subject to statutory conditions and time limits.
Section 28A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Provided a mechanism for eligible persons interested in other land covered by the same Section 4(1) notification, who had not sought a reference under Section 18, to apply to the Collector for re-determination on the basis of a court award granting higher compensation. Under Section 28A(1), the application generally had to be made within three months from the court's award, excluding the day of pronouncement and the time required to obtain a copy. Eligibility and limitation depend on the statutory wording and applicable case law.
Section 28A(2) and (3)
Sub-section (2) required the Collector to conduct an inquiry and make an award on a valid re-determination application. Sub-section (3) provided for a reference to the court at the instance of a dissatisfied applicant, subject to the applicable requirements.
Position under current land acquisition law
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 replaced the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquisitions governed by the newer regime, subject to its commencement, transitional provisions and judicial interpretation. Section 73 of the 2013 Act addresses re-determination of compensation on the basis of an award of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority in specified circumstances. Section 24 concerns the treatment of certain proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act.
The 2017 judgment concerns an acquisition initiated in 1974 and a Section 28A application under the 1894 Act. It should not be read as automatically substituting Section 73 of the 2013 Act for Section 28A in every pending or historical acquisition.
For statutory texts and updates, consult India Code (Government of India), the Department of Land Resources and the Supreme Court of India.
Practical significance
- A landowner's entitlement to Section 28A relief depends on eligibility, the underlying award, the common acquisition notification and the limitation rules.
- A second application cannot ordinarily be used to reopen compensation repeatedly after later enhancements.
- Where an original application was decided while the foundational reference award was still in appeal, the procedural history may be decisive; the exceptional relief in this case was based on the Collector's premature decision.
- Amounts previously received must be taken into account when implementing any fresh determination.
Frequently asked questions
Can a landowner apply repeatedly under Section 28A?
Ordinarily, no. The Supreme Court accepted the general prohibition on successive applications. Here it ordered reconsideration of the original application because of the unusual procedural error.
Does a higher appellate award automatically entitle every owner to more compensation?
No. Entitlement depends on the applicable acquisition statute, procedural history, eligibility, limitation and any binding orders. The 2017 direction was case-specific.
What did the Collector have to do after this judgment?
Reconsider the application dated 31 December 1992 in light of the High Court judgment of 23 March 2009, adjust sums already paid and comply with the deadlines ordered in that appeal.
Read the Supreme Court judgment
Civil Appeal No. 21792 of 2017, judgment dated 12 December 2017.
This article reports a 2017 judicial decision and provides general statutory context. For a current claim, check the governing acquisition law and subsequent binding judgments.