Court’s Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was time-barred. The court ruled that the limitation period of three months begins from the date of the award granting enhanced compensation, and not from the date the petitioners acquired knowledge of the award. It also clarified that authorities were not legally required to notify all landowners about such awards. However, the court noted that the petitioners could file a fresh application if a future court order granted a higher compensation.
Facts
- The petitioners owned or had an interest in a parcel of land located in a specific revenue estate.
- A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued to acquire land for public purposes, particularly for the construction of a 100-meter-wide road under Delhi’s planned development scheme.
- Following this, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued, and an award was passed under Section 11, fixing the market value of the land at ₹17,58,400 per acre.
- Some landowners, dissatisfied with the compensation, sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act, leading to an enhanced compensation of ₹26.5 lacs per acre through a court order dated 11.11.2016.
- The petitioners did not seek a reference under Section 18 when the original award was made.
- Later, in 2019, the petitioners filed an application under Section 28A, seeking the same enhanced compensation. However, the application was dismissed on the ground that it was beyond the three-month limitation period.
- The petitioners, aggrieved by this dismissal, approached the High Court challenging the decision.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether the petitioners’ application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act was barred by limitation.
- Whether petitioners who had not sought a reference under Section 18 could still claim enhanced compensation granted to other landowners.
- Whether the authorities were legally obligated to issue notices to all affected landowners regarding the enhanced compensation awards.
Petitioners’ Arguments
- The petitioners argued that they were unaware of the court’s order dated 11.11.2016, which enhanced the compensation. Because of this lack of knowledge, they could not file an application within the prescribed three-month period.
- They contended that Section 28A is a beneficial provision intended to prevent discrimination among landowners. Since other landowners with similar land had received a higher compensation, denying the petitioners the same benefit violated the principle of equality.
- The petitioners relied on various Supreme Court rulings that interpreted Section 28A in a manner that promotes justice over procedural rigidity.
- They also argued that authorities should have issued notices to all landowners affected by the award, informing them of their right to claim enhanced compensation.
Respondents’ Arguments
- The respondents countered that the law clearly states that an application under Section 28A must be filed within three months from the date of the court’s award, not from the date the petitioners gained knowledge of it.
- They cited Supreme Court judgments that firmly established that the limitation period starts from the date of the award itself.
- The respondents also argued that there is no legal requirement for authorities to issue notices to landowners who had not originally sought a reference under Section 18.
- They maintained that allowing delayed applications would create legal uncertainty and undermine the finality of compensation awards.
Analysis of the Law
Understanding Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act
Section 28A was introduced to provide relief to landowners who had not sought a reference under Section 18 for enhanced compensation. It allows them to apply for re-determination of compensation if a court awards higher compensation to other landowners for land covered under the same notification.
However, the law also imposes a strict three-month limitation period for filing such applications, with only the time required to obtain a certified copy of the judgment being excluded from this period. The purpose of this provision is to balance fairness in compensation with the need for legal certainty.
Limitation Period Under Section 28A
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the limitation period under Section 28A starts from the date of the award, not from when an applicant acquires knowledge of it. There is no provision in the law allowing an extension based on delayed awareness of the award.
Requirement of Notice to Landowners
The law does not mandate that authorities must issue notices to all affected landowners about an enhanced compensation order. It is the responsibility of landowners to stay informed and file applications within the stipulated period.
Precedent Analysis
The court relied on several key Supreme Court judgments:
- Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari & Ors.
- Held that the limitation period under Section 28A must be calculated from the date of the award, not from the date of knowledge.
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. Marri Venkaiah
- Reaffirmed that there is no legal obligation to notify landowners about enhanced compensation awards.
- Banwari v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation
- Clarified that an application under Section 28A can be based on an award granted by a High Court or Supreme Court, provided it is filed within three months.
- Kalawati v. Union of India
- Addressed the principle of equality, ruling that co-owners of land are entitled to the same compensation even if they did not independently appeal. However, this principle applies only to co-owners, not to all landowners under the same notification.
Court’s Reasoning
- The court found that the petitioners’ application was filed more than three years after the award, far beyond the prescribed limitation period of three months.
- It ruled that there was no legal requirement for authorities to notify landowners about enhanced compensation awards, and that landowners are expected to remain vigilant about such developments.
- The court clarified that co-owners of land are entitled to parity in compensation, but the same does not apply to landowners who failed to seek a reference under Section 18.
- It concluded that procedural timelines must be followed to ensure legal certainty and prevent indefinite compensation claims.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that:
- The three-month limitation period under Section 28A starts from the date of the award, not from the date of knowledge.
- Authorities are not legally required to notify landowners about enhanced compensation.
- The principle of equality applies only to co-owners of land, not to all landowners under the same acquisition notification.
However, the court clarified that the petitioners were not precluded from filing a fresh application under Section 28A if a future court order granted a higher compensation.
Implications of the Judgment
- Strict Interpretation of Limitation Period: Landowners must adhere to the three-month deadline under Section 28A. Late applications will be rejected, regardless of the petitioner’s awareness of the award.
- No Requirement for Notification: Landowners cannot rely on authorities to inform them of enhanced compensation. They must independently monitor legal developments.
- Ensuring Legal Certainty: By enforcing strict timelines, the ruling prevents indefinite claims and ensures finality in compensation awards.
- Differentiation Between Co-Owners and Other Landowners: The judgment clarifies that co-owners are entitled to equal compensation, but other landowners must follow legal procedures to claim benefits.
- Future Applications Still Possible: The court left room for petitioners to file fresh applications if a subsequent court ruling enhances compensation further.
