1. Court’s decision
The Bombay High Court (Kolhapur Bench) allowed a writ petition filed by the legal representatives of a deceased landowner whose application for redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been rejected by the Deputy Collector solely because a certified copy of the relevant reference court award was not annexed at the time of filing.
The Court held that the application had been filed within limitation, the certified copy was later produced during the proceedings, and Section 28A being beneficial legislation, a hyper-technical approach could not be adopted to deny substantive rights. The impugned rejection order dated 1 January 2019 was quashed, and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication on merits.
2. Facts
The deceased landowner, Shaliwan Raigonda Patil, owned 81R of agricultural land in Sangawade, Taluka Karveer, Kolhapur. The land was acquired in 1989 for the Dudhganga Canal Project. An award of ₹45,716 was passed on 21 October 1989. Dissatisfied, Patil filed a writ petition in 1989, which was dismissed in 1996. Possession was taken in 1997.
In April 2014, the Reference Court in LAR No. 31/2007 enhanced compensation for adjacent land. Based on this, Patil filed an application under Section 28A on 25 July 2014 — within the statutory three-month period. However, he initially annexed only another certified reference judgment relating to adjoining land and undertook to file the certified copy of the LAR 31/2007 award shortly.
On 10 June 2015, in response to a notice from the Deputy Collector, Patil submitted all requisitioned documents including the certified copy of the 30 April 2014 award. Despite this, the Deputy Collector rejected the entire application on 1 January 2019 for want of a certified copy, also citing limitation. Patil died in 2017; his heirs pursued the challenge.
3. Issues
The High Court considered:
• Whether an application under Section 28A can be rejected solely for not annexing a certified copy of the reference award at the initial filing stage.
• Whether filing the certified copy during the proceedings cures such defect.
• Whether rejecting a Section 28A application on technical grounds defeats the legislative object of equalizing compensation.
• Whether the Deputy Collector’s view on limitation was legally sustainable.
4. Petitioners’ arguments
The petitioners argued that the Section 28A application was filed within time and the certified copy of the LAR 31/2007 judgment was later submitted in response to the Deputy Collector’s notice. Therefore, the application ought to have been decided on merits, not rejected summarily.
They stressed that Section 28A is designed to protect illiterate and economically weaker landowners who fail to seek reference under Section 18. The Deputy Collector, instead of applying this benevolent purpose, adopted a rigid, mechanical approach.
They further pointed out that the deceased claimant was suffering from cancer during the period of communication and that denying compensation on such hyper-technical grounds was unjust.
5. Respondents’ arguments
The State defended the rejection order, arguing that:
• The claimant had not attached the certified copy along with the Section 28A application, and
• No application for obtaining a certified copy had been made within the statutory period.
The State asserted that the Deputy Collector was justified in concluding that the application was incomplete and time-barred, relying on the opinion of the District Government Pleader.
6. Analysis of the law
The High Court stressed that Section 28A is intended to eliminate inequality in compensation for similarly situated landholders. The Court cited the Supreme Court’s authoritative pronouncement in Banwari v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Ltd. (2025), which reaffirmed that Section 28A is a beneficent provision that must be interpreted liberally to extend its benefits, not curtail them.
The High Court held:
• The claimant filed the application within the statutory three months, hence limitation was not an issue.
• The certified copy requirement cannot override the fundamental purpose of Section 28A.
• The Deputy Collector’s approach — rejecting a timely application because the certified copy was filed later but during the proceedings — was “too technical” and contrary to the objective of the law.
The Court emphasized that procedural requirements cannot deprive landowners of substantive rights, especially when the certified copy was already part of the record before adjudication.
7. Precedent analysis
The Court extensively quoted the Supreme Court’s decision in Banwari (2025), which clarified:
• Section 28A seeks to remedy inequity in compensation among landowners affected by the same notification.
• It exists to help the inarticulate and poor who failed to seek reference earlier.
• Courts must adopt an interpretation that extends the benefit of Section 28A rather than constricts it.
The High Court applied this principle to hold that the Deputy Collector’s insistence on a certified copy at the initial stage — even though the copy was later submitted — unduly curtailed the benefit conferred by the statute.
It also relied on earlier Supreme Court judgments, including Pradeep Kumari, which affirm the liberal, welfare-oriented construction of Section 28A.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court found multiple errors in the Deputy Collector’s order:
• The application was not filed beyond limitation; rejecting it as time-barred was incorrect.
• The certified copy of the judgment was indeed filed — albeit later — and should have been considered.
• Section 28A applications must be adjudicated on merits, not rejected mechanically.
• The authority ignored the Supreme Court’s binding view that technicalities must not be allowed to defeat substantive rights under Section 28A.
The Court concluded that the rejection order deprived the petitioners of their legitimate right to seek enhanced compensation.
9. Conclusion
The High Court:
- Quashed the impugned order dated 1 January 2019;
- Remitted the matter to the Deputy Collector to decide the Section 28A application on merits;
- Directed the authority to allow the petitioners to participate as legal heirs of the original applicant;
- Ordered completion of the proceedings within 16 weeks;
- Granted liberty to the petitioners to file supporting documents.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed, and Rule made absolute.
10. Implications
This ruling reinforces key principles:
• Section 28A is remedial and must be interpreted liberally, favouring landowners.
• Authorities cannot dismiss applications on procedural lapses when substantive rights are at stake.
• Filing certified copies during proceedings is sufficient compliance for Section 28A, so long as the application itself is made in time.
• Land acquisition officers must prioritize merits over technicalities.
• Beneficial legislation protecting small farmers must be applied in a way that ensures equitable compensation and fair access to legal remedies.
The decision strengthens procedural fairness and prevents bureaucratic rigidity from undermining statutory entitlements.
CASE LAW REFERENCES
Banwari v. Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Ltd. (AIR 2025 SC 165)
Reaffirmed that Section 28A is a beneficial provision aimed at equalizing compensation and must be interpreted liberally. Applied directly.
Pradeep Kumari v. State of U.P. (SC, 3-Judge Bench)
Laid down the object and scope of Section 28A, emphasizing removal of inequality. Relied upon through Banwari.
FAQ SECTION
1. Can a Section 28A application be rejected solely because a certified copy of the reference judgment was not annexed initially?
No. The Bombay High Court held that if the certified copy is later filed during proceedings, the application must be decided on merits.
2. Is Section 28A strictly construed against landowners?
No. It is a beneficial legislation, and courts must interpret it liberally to extend its benefits to landowners who missed a Section 18 reference.
3. What happens when the original landowner dies during Section 28A proceedings?
Legal representatives are entitled to step in, and the authority must permit them to pursue the claim.