The Supreme Court has held that landowners are entitled to seek re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, based on appellate court judgments, even if they had earlier obtained compensation on the basis of the Reference Court’s award.
A Bench of Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh ruled that there is no statutory bar on filing a subsequent application under Section 28-A when compensation is further enhanced by the High Court or Supreme Court. The Court emphasised that the provision must be interpreted in a manner that advances its objective of ensuring parity among similarly placed landowners.
Rejecting the reliance on Ramsingbhai Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 16 SCC 445, and noting that high court erred in ignoring Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, (1995) 2 SCC 736, the Court held that appellate court awards fall within the scope of “award” under Section 28-A, especially in light of the doctrine of merger, under which the original award stands subsumed in the appellate decision.
The Court further clarified that acceptance of earlier compensation does not bar a landowner from seeking enhanced compensation later, as the principle of equality in compensation overrides technical objections such as waiver or estoppel.
Setting aside the Karnataka High Court’s judgment, the Court directed the authorities to re-determine compensation in line with the High Court’s enhanced award within eight weeks.
Appearances
Petitioners- Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Adv. Mr. Shivraj Bellakki, Adv. Mr. S.k Pandey, Adv. Mr. Anshul Rai, Adv. Ms. G. Anusha, Adv. Mr. Varnik Kundaliya, Adv. Mr. Amol Shirolkar, Adv. Mr. Jatin Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rahul Singh Latwal, Adv. M/s Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR
Respondents- Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Ms. V. Mohna, Sr.Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Shubhendu Anand, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR
