Court’s Decision
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court set aside the rejection of a landowner’s application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, observing that the mere filing and technical dismissal of a reference under Section 18 does not bar a fresh claim under Section 28-A. The Court held:
“When an application of a landowner under Section 18 is dismissed on the ground of delay, then the said landowner is entitled to make an application under Section 28-A, if other conditions prescribed therein are fulfilled.”
The Court directed the Collector to reconsider the petitioner’s application under Section 28-A on merits, excluding interest for the period prior to the filing of the said application.
Facts
The petitioner owned agricultural land admeasuring 1 hectare 1R in Village Sastur, Osmanabad district, which was acquired for village rehabilitation. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at ₹24,000 per hectare in 1996. Dissatisfied, the petitioner sought enhanced compensation through a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
However, the Reference Court rejected her claim in 2009 for failure to produce documents and lead evidence. Her subsequent Civil Revision and Special Leave Petition were dismissed on grounds of delay.
Meanwhile, a co-villager whose land was acquired in the same proceedings received enhanced compensation via another reference. Relying on this, the petitioner filed an application under Section 28-A seeking re-determination of her compensation. The Collector dismissed her application solely on the ground that she had earlier filed a Section 18 reference.
Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner moved the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues
- Whether an application under Section 28-A is maintainable when a previous reference under Section 18 has been rejected without adjudication on merits.
- Whether dismissal of a Section 18 reference on technical grounds precludes a landowner from seeking compensation enhancement under Section 28-A.
- Whether the Collector acted within the scope of law in rejecting the petitioner’s Section 28-A application.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that her reference under Section 18 was not dismissed on merits but on technical grounds, i.e., failure to appear and lead evidence. Since her reference was never adjudicated, the Collector should have considered her Section 28-A application on its own merits.
She relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Union of India v. Hansoli Devi, which clarified that a person whose Section 18 application is dismissed on the ground of delay or other technicality is not barred from filing under Section 28-A.
Further, she contended that her application was filed within the limitation period, and she voluntarily waived her claim for interest prior to the Section 28-A application.
Judgments relied upon by the petitioner:
- Kawadu Madhav Bansod v. State of Maharashtra (2004)
- Subhash Babulal Rajput v. State of Maharashtra (2012)
- Mukund Bhimrao Kalshetti v. State of Maharashtra (2011)
- Union of India v. Hansoli Devi (2002) 7 SCC 273
- Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat AIR 1970 SC 1
- Chander Bhan v. Union of India (2013)
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the petition, asserting that Section 28-A expressly excludes landowners who have sought redress through Section 18. Since the petitioner had already exhausted her Section 18 remedy, she could not subsequently invoke Section 28-A.
In support, the State cited judgments which emphasized that Section 28-A is available only to those who had not filed any reference earlier:
- Mewa Ram v. State of Haryana (1986) 4 SCC 151
- Babua Ram v. State of U.P. (1995) 2 SCC 689
- CIDCO v. Dosu Ardeshir Bhiwandiwala (2009) 1 SCC 168
The State contended that the Reference Court had passed an award and therefore, the right under Section 28-A stood extinguished.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court examined Section 28-A in light of the Constitution Bench ruling in Hansoli Devi, which clarified that:
“Dismissal of an application under Section 18 on the ground of delay would tantamount to not filing an application within the meaning of Section 28-A.”
The Court distinguished between a substantive adjudication on merits and a mere procedural rejection. Since the petitioner’s application was dismissed due to absence and not because of a reasoned adjudication, the Court held that she could not be disqualified under Section 28-A.
Further, the Court emphasized that Section 28-A is a beneficial provision meant to ensure parity among landowners affected by the same notification. A literal interpretation denying this right would defeat the object of the provision.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment hinges heavily on the Constitution Bench decision in Hansoli Devi, which overruled narrower interpretations in earlier cases like Mewa Ram and Babua Ram.
The Court also applied principles from Bombay High Court rulings in:
- Kawadu Madhav Bansod: Civil Revision allowed; matter remanded due to lack of evidence-led adjudication.
- Subhash Rajput and Mukund Kalshetti: Similar facts; allowed Civil Revisions and remanded matters for fresh adjudication.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that:
- The Reference Court’s rejection was not on merits but due to non-prosecution.
- No effective adjudication occurred.
- Mere procedural failure should not bar substantive rights under a beneficial legislation like the Land Acquisition Act.
The Court rejected the argument that the petitioner’s filing under Section 18 automatically extinguished her rights under Section 28-A.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court quashed the Collector’s order and directed reconsideration of the petitioner’s application under Section 28-A on merits. The Court clarified that the petitioner would not be entitled to interest for the period before the filing of the application under Section 28-A.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the doctrine that technical procedural failures should not defeat substantive rights, particularly under welfare legislation. It expands access to re-determination of compensation for landowners whose earlier claims were dismissed without adjudication.
This ruling will aid similarly placed landowners in Maharashtra and across India who, due to non-prosecution or procedural hurdles, were earlier shut out from equitable compensation benefits.
Referred Cases and Their Relevance
- Union of India v. Hansoli Devi (2002): Constitution Bench held that dismissal of Section 18 reference on delay does not bar Section 28-A rights.
- Kawadu Madhav Bansod v. State of Maharashtra: Rejection without evidence is not an adjudication; matter remanded.
- Subhash Rajput and Mukund Kalshetti: Applied Kawadu, holding dismissal for non-prosecution is not a bar to fresh claim.
- Mewa Ram and Babua Ram: Earlier rulings limiting Section 28-A; distinguished by Constitution Bench in Hansoli Devi.
FAQs
1. Can a landowner who filed a Section 18 reference still seek relief under Section 28-A?
Yes, if the Section 18 application was dismissed on technical grounds and not decided on merits, the landowner can file under Section 28-A, as clarified in Hansoli Devi.
2. What was the primary error of the Collector in this case?
The Collector rejected the Section 28-A application solely because a Section 18 reference had been filed, without assessing whether it was adjudicated on merits.
3. What rights does Section 28-A grant to landowners?
It allows landowners, who did not seek or did not successfully pursue a reference, to apply for re-determination of compensation based on a favorable award granted to other similarly placed landowners.