Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the judgment of the High Court dated 25th November 2021. It reinstated the order passed by the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) on 15th September 2020, which had enhanced the compensation payable to the appellants. The Court’s decision reaffirmed the applicability of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act (1894) to the appellants’ case, despite the fact that the High Court had set aside the LAC’s order.
Facts
- Land Acquisition:
The appellants’ land, located in village Majri, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, was acquired for the construction of the Kundli-Manesar-Palwal Expressway via a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 17th November 2004. The total land acquired was 8 Kanal 17 Marla. - Compensation Award:
An award for compensation was made by the LAC on 1st March 2006, determining a rate of Rs.12,50,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with this compensation, the similarly circumstanced landowners, including the appellants, filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to seek enhanced compensation. - Enhancement of Compensation by High Court:
The reference made by the landowners was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 17th January 2012. Following this, the landowners filed Regular First Appeal (RFA) No. 429 of 2013 before the High Court, which on 2nd May 2016, enhanced the compensation to Rs.19,91,300/- per acre along with statutory benefits, in line with other similarly situated landowners. - Section 28-A Application:
The appellants, who had not filed a reference under Section 18, sought to claim the benefit of the High Court’s judgment via Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The LAC, by an order dated 15th September 2020, agreed to enhance the compensation for the appellants in accordance with the High Court’s decision in the RFA case. - High Court’s Intervention:
Respondent No. 1, Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation, challenged the LAC’s order by filing a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. The High Court, in a judgment dated 25th November 2021, set aside the LAC’s order and held that the appellants were not entitled to enhanced compensation under Section 28-A.
Issues
The central legal issue in this case was whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of enhanced compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, which would allow them to claim compensation based on the High Court’s decision, even though they had not filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Erroneous Reliance on Ramsingbhai Jerambhai Case:
The appellants argued that the High Court had erred in relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ramsingbhai Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat (2014). The appellants contended that this judgment restricted the application of Section 28-A to only those awards passed by the Reference Court and not by the appellate courts. - Application of Pradeep Kumari Case:
The appellants argued that the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in Pradeep Kumari v. Union of India (1995) should be applicable. The Pradeep Kumari case extended the benefit of Section 28-A to awards based on appellate court judgments, and this principle was more relevant to their case. - Section 28-A’s Beneficial Intent:
The appellants emphasized that Section 28-A was meant to ensure fairness in compensation for landowners affected by the same acquisition. Thus, denying the appellants the benefit of enhanced compensation based on the appellate court’s decision would be inconsistent with the provision’s intention to provide relief to all affected landowners.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Reliance on Ramsingbhai Jerambhai Case:
The respondents defended the High Court’s decision by stating that it had correctly relied on the judgment in Ramsingbhai Jerambhai (2014), which limited the applicability of Section 28-A to the Reference Court’s awards and not appellate court judgments. - Limitation on Section 28-A:
The respondents argued that the application under Section 28-A should only be based on an award made by the Reference Court, as per the Ramsingbhai decision, and that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of the judgment passed in the Regular First Appeal.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court examined the language and intent behind Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, focusing on its beneficent nature. Section 28-A was designed to rectify the disparity in compensation for similarly situated landowners who were unable to file a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Court analyzed both Ramsingbhai Jerambhai and Pradeep Kumari to determine the scope of Section 28-A.
- Beneficent Legislation:
The Court noted that Section 28-A is a beneficent provision aimed at removing inequality in compensation for landowners whose lands were acquired under the same notification. The Court emphasized that such provisions should be interpreted in a way that advances their objective, rather than restricting the benefits. - Pradeep Kumari vs Ramsingbhai Jerambhai:
The Court observed that the earlier judgment in Pradeep Kumari (1995) had dealt with a similar issue and had provided a broader interpretation, allowing the benefit of enhanced compensation based on appellate court decisions. The Court found that this interpretation aligned with the intention behind Section 28-A to extend relief to affected landowners.
Precedent Analysis
The Court reviewed the precedents of Ramsingbhai Jerambhai (2014) and Pradeep Kumari (1995) to assess the scope of Section 28-A. It also referred to the judgment in National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), which discussed the binding nature of earlier decisions and the rule of per incuriam, which applies when a later decision fails to consider an earlier binding precedent. The Court concluded that the interpretation in Pradeep Kumari was more aligned with the legislative intent behind Section 28-A.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of Section 28-A as a beneficent provision, designed to ensure fairness and equality in compensation for landowners affected by the same notification. The Court reasoned that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of enhanced compensation, as their case was similar to that of landowners whose compensation had been increased by the High Court in the Regular First Appeal.
The Court also explained that the limitation for filing an application under Section 28-A starts from the date of the award on which the redetermination of compensation is sought, not from the date of the Reference Court’s judgment. The appellants’ application, which was filed within three months of the High Court’s judgment, was therefore timely.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appellants’ appeal, quashed the High Court’s order, and upheld the LAC’s decision to enhance the compensation. The Court emphasized that Section 28-A should be interpreted broadly to fulfill its purpose of providing equitable compensation to all landowners under the same acquisition.
Implications
The ruling reinforces the principle that Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act should be interpreted to provide relief to landowners who were unable to avail of the Reference Court’s compensation. It ensures that landowners who are similarly affected by the same acquisition can claim enhanced compensation, even if their cases were decided by appellate courts, so long as the requirements of Section 28-A are met.
This judgment promotes equality in compensation for landowners who might otherwise have been denied the benefit of higher compensation due to their inability to file a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Court’s decision has broader implications for future cases under Section 28-A, expanding its scope to include appeals and judgments passed by appellate courts.