Court’s Decision:
The Orissa High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition seeking quashing of the rejection order under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court noted that since the compensation amount directed in the award in L.A.R. Case No.183/2010 had now been sanctioned by the Government of Odisha, the petitioner could pursue the appropriate authority for disposal of the 28-A application.
“As such, there is no difficulty in disposing of the proceeding under Section 28-A of the Act,” the Court observed, allowing the withdrawal of the writ petition.
Facts:
The petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. His application sought re-determination of compensation based on the award dated 10.02.2023 in L.A.R. Case No.183/2010 relating to the acquisition of land in Konabira village for the Lower Indra Irrigation Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had rejected the petitioner’s request on 26.04.2024 citing non-sanction of the compensation estimate by the Water Resources Department as on that date.
Issues:
- Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act was valid?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to re-determination of compensation in light of subsequent sanction by the government?
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner, through counsel, submitted that the rejection was solely based on the technicality that the compensation amount in L.A.R. Case No.183/2010 had not been sanctioned on the date of his application. However, he argued that the Government had now sanctioned the amount, thus removing the only hurdle to disposing of his Section 28-A application.
Accordingly, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition to directly pursue the disposal of the application before the concerned authority.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondents did not oppose the withdrawal. It appears from the order that the State had no objection to the petitioner’s prayer for withdrawal in light of the developments regarding sanction of the compensation amount.
Analysis of the Law:
Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides a remedy to persons interested in the land who did not seek reference under Section 18 but are similarly situated as those who were granted enhanced compensation. Upon such re-determination, the claimant becomes entitled to a proportionate increase in compensation.
The petitioner sought such re-determination relying on the award in L.A.R. Case No.183/2010. The authority rejected his claim due to a technical delay in the government’s sanction. Now that the sanction had been obtained, the petitioner was within his right to approach the appropriate authority afresh.
Precedent Analysis:
No specific precedents were cited or relied upon in the order. The Court acted on equitable considerations in light of subsequent developments.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court found merit in the petitioner’s submission that the only reason for rejection no longer existed since the compensation amount stood sanctioned. Observing that there remained “no difficulty in disposing of the proceeding under Section 28-A,” the Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition and pursue the appropriate authority for relief.
Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn. The Court clarified that the petitioner was at liberty to approach the Special Land Acquisition Officer afresh for redetermination of compensation in terms of the already sanctioned award.
Implications:
- The order reinforces that technical grounds such as delay in administrative sanction cannot permanently bar legitimate claims under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act.
- Applicants similarly situated may cite this decision to push for fresh consideration if circumstances have evolved post rejection.
- Authorities are expected to act upon re-determination applications promptly where government sanction is available.
FAQs:
Q1. What is the remedy under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act?
Section 28-A provides for re-determination of compensation to those who did not seek reference under Section 18 but whose lands were acquired under the same notification as those who obtained higher compensation via court award.
Q2. Can a rejected application under Section 28-A be reconsidered?
Yes. If the ground for rejection—such as pending sanction—is later resolved, the claimant can approach the authority again or seek relief before the court, as held in this case.
Q3. Does government sanction of compensation impact Section 28-A applications?
Absolutely. Without such sanction, authorities often reject applications; however, once sanctioned, it removes the impediment, enabling reconsideration of the claim.
Referred Cases:
No case laws were directly referred to or relied upon in this order.
