Court’s Decision
The Allahabad High Court, in a landmark judgment delivered by Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai, allowed the writ petition filed by landowners seeking implementation of an order passed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, directing Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (KUMS) to deposit enhanced compensation and dismissed all connected petitions filed by the KUMS challenging the same.
The Court ruled that applications under Section 28-A were filed within limitation, that the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) had rightly redetermined the compensation at ₹108 per square metre along with statutory benefits, and that KUMS had no valid ground to withhold payment.
Justice Tripathi observed:
“Section 28-A is a beneficent provision enacted to remove inequality in compensation for the same acquisition. It must be interpreted liberally to advance the legislative intent rather than defeat it by technical objections.”
The Court emphasized that the State’s obligation to pay just and fair compensation for acquired land is a constitutional duty under Article 31 of the Constitution, and prolonged litigation should not deprive landowners of their legitimate dues.
Facts
The dispute concerned acquisition of 47.98½ acres of land in village Majhola, Moradabad, for constructing a Market Yard by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (KUMS). A notification under Sections 4(1)/17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 30 April 1977, followed by a declaration under Section 6 and possession on 10 July 1977.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) initially awarded compensation at ₹15.75 per square yard on 9 August 1982. Dissatisfied, several tenure-holders sought reference under Section 18, which were initially rejected in 1989 but later reviewed, and in 1990, compensation was enhanced to ₹64 per sq. metre with solatium and interest.
However, KUMS challenged those awards before the High Court. The High Court remanded the matters, and the Reference Court, upon reconsideration, in 2016 and 2017, enhanced compensation to ₹108 per sq. metre. Appeals by KUMS were dismissed by both the High Court (2020, 2021) and the Supreme Court (2020).
Following the finality of the 2016 award, the landowners filed applications under Section 28-A on 26 April 2016, seeking redetermination of compensation on parity with those who had obtained the 2016 enhancement. The SLAO, by order dated 17 February 2022, allowed their applications, directing KUMS to pay the enhanced compensation with statutory benefits.
Instead of complying, KUMS challenged the order before the High Court, while the landowners filed a separate writ for its enforcement. The Apex Court, in an earlier round (2024), remitted the matter back for fresh consideration, holding that Section 28-A(3) can be invoked only by aggrieved claimants, not acquisition beneficiaries.
Issues
- Whether landowners who had not filed references under Section 18 could seek redetermination under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act.
- Whether the landowners’ applications under Section 28-A were barred by limitation.
- Whether the SLAO had jurisdiction to grant enhanced compensation and interest under Section 28-A.
- Whether KUMS, as acquiring body, could challenge an order granting redetermination to landowners.
Petitioners’ Arguments (Landowners)
The landowners, represented by Senior Advocate Sudeep Harkauli, argued that their applications were filed within three months from the 2016 Reference Court award and hence were within limitation. They contended that KUMS’s reliance on the earlier 1990 award was misplaced since that award was set aside and ceased to exist.
They relied heavily on Banwari and Others v. Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (2025 AIR SC 165), where the Supreme Court clarified that each award granting enhanced compensation creates a new starting point of limitation for Section 28-A applications.
They also cited Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari (1995) 2 SCC 736, emphasizing that Section 28-A must be interpreted liberally to benefit landowners who were unaware or unable to seek references earlier.
It was further argued that the landowners were being unjustly deprived of their rightful dues for nearly five decades and that KUMS’s objections were merely an attempt to delay compliance.
Respondents’ Arguments (KUMS and State)
The KUMS, represented by Advocate Suresh C. Dwivedi, contended that the applications under Section 28-A were hopelessly time-barred, as the landowners should have filed them within three months of the 1990 enhancement order, not after 27 years.
They argued that the SLAO had no authority to award interest under Section 28-A and that reopening compensation claims decades later would cause heavy financial burden on public bodies. They also claimed that the SLAO had mechanically allowed the applications without properly considering objections.
The State Counsel, supporting KUMS, maintained that the landowners had accepted the initial compensation in 1982 without protest and hence could not claim redetermination decades later.
Analysis of the Law
The Court undertook a comprehensive examination of Sections 28 and 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, emphasizing that Section 28-A was enacted in 1984 as a beneficial provision to remove inequality in compensation among similarly situated landowners.
Citing Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari and Banwari v. HSIIDC, the Court reaffirmed that:
- Section 28-A is designed to extend benefits of enhanced compensation to those who could not initially seek reference under Section 18.
- The limitation period begins from the specific award relied upon, not the earliest award under the same notification.
- The provision must be interpreted liberally, not restrictively, to fulfill its welfare objective.
The Bench observed that the 1990 award relied upon by KUMS had been set aside by the High Court in appeals and hence could not form the basis of limitation. The only valid award was the 2016 Reference Court decision, which was upheld till the Supreme Court.
Thus, the landowners’ applications, filed within three months of the 2016 award, were held to be well within limitation.
Precedent Analysis
- Banwari and Others v. HSIIDC (2025 AIR SC 165) – Held that limitation under Section 28-A runs from the award relied upon, not the earliest one, and reaffirmed Pradeep Kumari as the binding precedent, declaring Ramsingbhai Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat (2018) 16 SCC 445 as per incuriam.
- Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari (1995) 2 SCC 736) – Laid the foundation that Section 28-A is a beneficial provision and must be interpreted to extend relief, not restrict it.
- Union of India v. Hansoli Devi (2002) 7 SCC 273) – Held that dismissal of a reference on limitation or technical grounds does not bar a landowner from seeking redetermination under Section 28-A.
- Narendra v. State of U.P. (2017) 9 SCC 426) – Affirmed that all landowners under the same notification should get equal compensation; unequal treatment would amount to discrimination.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that all statutory conditions under Section 28-A were satisfied:
- The lands were covered under the same notification of 1977.
- The Reference Court’s 2016 award enhanced compensation.
- The landowners had not filed Section 18 references earlier.
- Their applications were filed within three months of the 2016 award.
Accordingly, the SLAO’s order was legally correct. The Court rejected KUMS’s plea of “stale claims,” holding that the delay was due to prolonged litigation initiated by KUMS itself.
“The landowners cannot be penalized for delays caused by the acquiring body’s own actions. Denying them the benefit now would perpetuate the very inequality Section 28-A was enacted to remove.”
The Court also held that the SLAO was competent to award interest and solatium, as these are statutory consequences of redetermination of compensation.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the landowners’ writ petition, dismissed all petitions filed by KUMS, and directed the Mandi Samiti to:
- Comply with the SLAO’s order dated 17 February 2022 and deposit enhanced compensation at ₹108 per sq. metre with statutory benefits within six weeks.
- Pay interest at 12% per annum in case of default beyond the stipulated period.
The Court lamented the four-decade delay in paying rightful compensation and emphasized that the purpose of Section 28-A is to deliver substantive justice, not to perpetuate procedural inequalities.
Implications
- Reaffirms that Section 28-A applications are not time-barred if filed within three months of the specific award relied upon.
- Prevents inequality in compensation among similarly situated landowners.
- Confirms that beneficial legislations must be interpreted liberally to achieve their purpose.
- Limits acquiring authorities’ power to delay or challenge valid redetermination orders.
