Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Adv. Mr. S.k Pandey, Adv. Mr. Anshul Rai, Adv. For M/s Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG Mrs. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR Ms. Shephali, Adv. Mr. Sorokhaibam Shanti Jyoti Singh, Adv.

Key Points: - The Supreme Court held that landowners can seek re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act based on any applicable court award, including appellate court awards (!) (!) . - The Court clarified that the doctrine of merger applies, meaning an appellate award supersedes earlier awards, making the latter applicable for compensation re-determination under Section 28-A (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment emphasized the principle of equitable compensation for similarly placed individuals, aiming to avoid discrimination (!) (!) (!) . - The Court overruled the decision in Ramsingbhai Jerambhai, stating that re-determination under Section 28-A is not restricted to awards of original jurisdiction courts but can include appellate court judgments (!) (!) (!) . - A second application under Section 28-A, seeking re-determination based on a higher appellate court award, is maintainable even if an earlier application was based on a Reference Court award (!) . - The object of Section 28-A is to ensure equality in compensation for similarly placed landowners, and procedural technicalities should be avoided to achieve this (!) (!) . - The Court directed the re-determination of compensation based on the latest High Court award within eight weeks (!) (!) (!) . - The decision in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari was reaffirmed, emphasizing that Section 28-A is a beneficent provision to remove inequality (!) (!) . - The Court found that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in relying on Ramsingbhai Jerambhai without considering Pradeep Kumari (!) . - The appeals were allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment and the order of rejection by the Collector (!) (!) .

What is the scope of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, regarding re-determination of compensation based on appellate court awards?

What is the applicability of the doctrine of merger in relation to Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

What are the rights of landowners seeking re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, when multiple awards exist?