SC: Redetermination under Section 28-A, Land Acquisition Act,1894 only of Court's Award under Part III, not Appellate Court's Judgment, Read Judgment

In a notable observation, the Supreme Court held that "the redetermination under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is available only in respect of an 'award' passed by the 'court' under Part III of the Land Acquisition Act, and the judgment of the appellate court is not within the purview of Section 28-A."

This clarification arises in the context of a case where the appellants sought enhanced compensation for land acquired for the Kundli Manesar Palwal Expressway after the High Court set aside the Land Acquisition Collector’s (LAC) order.

The appellants' land in village Majri, Jhajjar, was acquired for the Kundli Manesar Palwal Expressway through a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 17th November 2004.  The compensation for the land was determined at Rs. 12,50,000 per acre by an award issued on 1st March 2006. Dissatisfied with the compensation, the appellants sought enhancement through a reference, which was dismissed in 2012. They then appealed to the High Court, which in 2016, increased the compensation to Rs. 19,91,300 per acre. The appellants applied for the same enhanced compensation under Section 28-A of the Act on 30th June 2016, which the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) approved on 15th September 2020. Respondent No. 1 challenged this in a writ petition, and the High Court, in its judgment dated 6th September 2021, ruled that applications under Section 28-A must be filed within three months of the Reference Court's judgment, not the High Court's, thus setting aside the LAC's order.

The appellants' counsel contended that the High Court erred in relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat and Another, as it did not consider the earlier judgment in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari (2018). The counsel argued that the appeal should therefore be allowed.

The respondents' counsel contended that the High Court rightly relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Ramsingbhai Jerambhai. Therefore, the counsel argued that the appeal should be dismissed.

In Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai case, the Court stated that “the redetermination under Section 28-A is available only in respect of an 'award' passed by the 'court' under Part III of the Act". The Court emphasized that "the 'Court' referred to in Section 28-A of the Act is the Court as defined under Section 3(d), meaning a Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction", and that "the judgment of the appellate court is not within the purview of Section 28-A".

The Court further observed in Pradeep Kumari case that "the object underlying the enactment of Section 28-A is to remove inequality in the payment of compensation for the same or similar quality of land". It noted that the provision was intended to "provide 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 higher compensation", emphasizing the beneficent nature of the provision and the Court's duty to "adopt a construction which advances the policy of the legislation to extend the benefit" rather than limit it.

Additionally, it was clarified that "the right to make an application under Section 28-A arises from the award of the court on the basis of which the person is seeking redetermination" and that "there is nothing in sub-section (1) of Section 28-A to indicate that this right is confined in respect of the earliest award". The Court ruled that the "limitation for moving the application under Section 28-A will begin to run only from the date of the award".

The Court also noted that "an earlier decision of a Bench of particular strength would be binding on subsequent Benches of the same or lesser number of judges" and cited the principle of per incuriam, which means "a judgment can be per incuriam if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously pronounced judgment". The judgment in Ramsingbhai did not acknowledge Pradeep Kumari, which was binding, and thus, the principle of "certainty of law" was reinforced.

The Court allowed the appeal, quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 25th November 2021, and upheld the order of the LAC dated 15th September 2020. Any pending application(s) were disposed of.

Picture Source :