Re-determination of Compensation Under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act Can Be Based on High Court's Enhancement : Supreme Court
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Banwari and Others v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) and Another ruled that a claim for re-determination of enhanced compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be denied merely because it is based on a High Court's decision to enhance compensation rather than the Reference Court's decision under Section 18 of the Act.
A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision, which had rejected the appellants' claim for enhanced compensation. The Court clarified that Section 28-A is intended to benefit landowners who did not initially seek a reference under Section 18 but later relied on an enhanced award, whether made by the Reference Court or appellate courts, including the High Court.
Case Background:
In 2004, the appellants' land was acquired for the Kundli-Manesar-Palwal Expressway, and compensation of ₹12,50,000 per acre was awarded.
In 2016, the High Court increased the compensation to ₹19,91,300 per acre for similarly situated landowners.
The appellants, who had not sought reference earlier, applied under Section 28-A for re-determination based on the High Court's enhanced award.
In 2020, the Land Acquisition Collector allowed their claim, but HSIIDC challenged this in the High Court, which ruled the application invalid, relying on Ramsingbhai Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat (2018).
Supreme Court’s Ruling:
The Court held that Ramsingbhai Jerambhai was rendered per incuriam as it conflicted with the earlier coordinate bench judgment in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari (1995).
Reaffirming Pradeep Kumari, the Court stated that Section 28-A is a beneficial provision aimed at eliminating inequalities by providing fair compensation to landowners who missed filing a reference under Section 18. It allows re-determination based on enhanced awards from appellate courts, ensuring justice to inarticulate and underprivileged landowners.
Conclusion:
The Court emphasized that interpretations of Section 28-A must advance its purpose and not curtail its benefit. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court's decision was overturned.