Bombay High Court Opens Door to Enhanced Compensation Under Section 28A: No Cap at 'Foundational Award'

In a landmark batch ruling, the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad Bench has clarified that landowners invoking Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are not shackled to the compensation rates in the so-called "foundational award." Justice Shailesh P. Brahme partly allowed appeals by farmers like Geetabai Eknath Salunke and others, reclassifying some lands as irrigated and remanding others for fresh assessment of trees, wells, and structures. This decision, pronounced on February 27, 2026, breathes new life into a 1986 acquisition saga.

Roots in a 1986 Land Grab: The Acquisition That Sparked Decades of Dispute

The saga traces back to a December 3, 1986, notification under Section 4 of the LA Act, acquiring lands in Vaijapur for public use. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) awarded a meager Rs. 370 per R acre in 1990, ignoring wells, fruit trees, and structures—no appeals under Section 18 followed from these appellants.

Fast-forward to 2015: In LAR No. 10/2013 (Hiralal Kishansingh Rajput's case), the Reference Court hiked rates to Rs. 1,500/R for dry land and Rs. 2,250/R for seasonal irrigated—dubbed the "foundational award." Armed with this, appellants sought redetermination under Section 28A. The Collector offered Rs. 1,414-1,715/R (dry land only), denying extras. The Reference Court rejected enhancements, insisting no excess over the foundational award.

Appeals flooded the High Court, split into Group I (irrigated reclassification) and Group II (add-ons like trees/wells).

Claimants Push for Parity and More: 'Beneficial Law Demands Full Justice'

Appellants, led by advocate Anand P. Bhandari, argued Section 28A is a "beneficent provision" for the "inarticulate and poor," per Supreme Court precedents like Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari (1995). They urged liberal interpretation: no caps on rates, full Section 18-28 applicability, irrigated status backed by 7/12 extracts and witness testimony, plus separate pay for trees/structures absent in the foundational award. Evidence showed wells nearby and irrigated crops.

Respondents, via AGPs and advocates like Rahul Tambe, countered: Section 28A is narrow— "redetermination on the basis of" the foundational award means parity, not surplus. Citing V. Ramkrishnarao v. Singareni Collieries (2010), they warned against "abuse," blocking reclassification or new claims like trees, which weren't in the base case.

Decoding Section 28A: Beyond Literal Chains, Embracing Equity

Justice Brahme dissected Section 28A's text and spirit, rejecting "restrictions" on Collector/Court powers. Drawing from five-judge Union of India v. Hansoli Devi (2002) on plain language and Pradeep Kumari 's equity push, he affirmed: "compensation determinable under Section 28-A cannot be restricted to the compensation awarded in a Foundational Award."

Market value can't exceed foundational rates (Rs. 1,500 dry/Rs. 3,000 irrigated, doubled for perennial), but add-ons? Yes—if evidence proves arbitrary denial. V. Ramkrishnarao ? Mere obiter, no absolute bar. Kerala Full Bench in K.V. Sarda aligned, allowing flexibility.

The Court scrutinized records: 7/12 extracts, depositions proved irrigation in Group I appeals. No hyper-technical blocks for Group II.

Key Observations

"The legislature has employed words 'redetermination' and 'compensation' in Sec. 28-A of Act... It is not the intention of the legislature to provide market value to the inarticulate and poor land owner who is unable to approach the Reference Court."

"Section 28-A is, therefore, in the nature of a beneficent provision intended to remove inequality and to give relief to the inarticulate and poor people."

"If the clinching material is placed on record by the applicants/claimants suggesting that classification of the land is incorrect or additional compensation for trees, structure, well, etc. has been denied arbitrarily... it would be within realm of Section 28-A."

As echoed in contemporary coverage, this upholds Section 28A's aim to "remove inequality in the payment of compensation for same or similar quality of land."

Victory for Some, Fresh Hearing for Others: Rates Hiked, Remands Ordered

Group I appeals (e.g., FA 1328/2024 Geetabai et al., 1330/2024 Pandurang Shete) won Rs. 3,000/R for irrigated lands, plus 30% solatium, 12% additional, and interest per State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari .

Group II (e.g., FA 1329/2024 Tukaram et al., up to 2873/2024) remanded: Reference Court must reassess trees/wells without foundational cap, decide by January 2027.

This ruling ripples: empowers Section 28A claimants with evidence, ensuring constitutional fairness under Article 300A. Future cases? Expect robust proof for reclassification/add-ons, but no more rigid caps—equity prevails.