Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Andanayya and Others – Appellants
Versus
Deputy Chief Engineer and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3897-3903 of 2026 [Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 2587-2593 of 2021]
Decided On : 25-03-2026
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 28-A – Acquisition of land – Re-determination of compensation – Doctrine of Merger – Once an award is passed by High Court, earlier one passed by Reference Court ceases to exist, and stands subsumed within award of High Court – Same is case when an award is passed by Supreme Court – Neither law nor the Act recognizes existence of two awards emanating from same proceedings, simultaneously – There can only be one decree or order in operation at a given point in time. (Paras 15 and 16)
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 28-A – Acquisition of land – Re-determination of compensation – Even a second application made under Section 28-A of Act after award passed by High Court is maintainable and entitled to be considered by Collector/LAO – Entertaining an earlier application filed under Section 28-A of the Act on the basis of award of Reference Court followed by receipt of money, shall not act as a bar for same applicant to seek further re-determination of compensation on the basis of award passed by High Court or this Court – Doctrine of Merger that comes into application in such circumstances – Benefit of enhanced compensation received by a landowner, consequent to final award passed by appellate forum, would also extend to similarly placed landowners who seek redetermination of compensation under Section 28-A of Act – Ultimately, object of Section 28-A of Act is to maintain parity and equality between similarly placed landowners in payment of compensation – Question of estoppel, waiver or acquiescence would not arise, in view of statutory prescriptions under Section 28-A of Act – In absence of any statutory prohibition, there is no bar for appellants to seek re-determination of compensation on the basis of award of High Court, even if they had previously filed application after award of Reference Court. (Paras 25, 26 and 27)
Facts of the case:
Appellants are landowners who have lost their land in acquisition proceedings. They are aggrieved by impugned judgment of Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka, wherein second application filed by them before Collector, seeking re-determination of compensation, has been rejected. Appellants had earlier sought re-determination of compensation on the basis of award of Reference Court and now seek further re-determination on parity with similarly placed landowners, in whose favor High Court was pleased to pass an enhanced award.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment and order passed by Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka stands set aside. Consequently, order of rejection passed by respondent no. 2 dated 30.11.2013 also stands set aside with a direction to respondents to re-determine compensation in favour of appellants in light of the judgment of High Court dated 22.07.2013 in MFA Nos. 3289 and 3291 of 2007, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Result : Appeals allowed.
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 (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. land acquisition and compensation determination. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments on application of previous judgments. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's analysis of compensation under section 28-a. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 27 , 28) |
| 4. importance of maintaining equality through section 28-a. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. final decision and order from the supreme court. (Para 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
M.M. SUNDRESH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants in the present appeals are the landowners who have lost their land in the acquisition proceedings. They are aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, wherein the second application filed by them before the Collector, seeking re-determination of compensation, has been rejected. The appellants had earlier sought re-determination of compensation on the basis of the award of the Reference Court and now seek further re-determination on parity with similarly placed landowners, in whose favor the High Court was pleased to pass an enhanced award.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Solicitor General of India (ASG), as well as the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents. Documents filed, judgments relied upon, and the written submissions have been perused and duly taken on record.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
4. Lands situated at Mavanoor Village, Hubballi Taluk, were acquired for the construction of the Hubballi-Ankola Broad Gauge Line. On 18.04.2002, a preliminary notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). On 31.03.2003, respondent no. 2, who is the Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as “the LAO”), passed an award under Section 11 of the Act, fixing compensation at Rs. 40,000/- per acre. Being dissatisfied with the amount awarded, some landowners sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court awarded an enhanced sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre as compensation, vide judgment dated 17.11.2006.
5. The appellants, who did not seek a reference, filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act on 01.02.2007, within 90 days from the date of the award of the Reference Court, seeking re-determination of their compensation based upon the award of the Reference Court in LAC Nos. 1-5/2003. During the pendency of the said application, appeals were filed before the High Court by some of the landowners, as well as by respondent no. 2, seeking enhancement and reduction of compensation, respectively. After the appeals filed by respondent no. 2 were dismissed by the High Court, vide order dated 06.08.2012, the first application filed by the appellants under Section 28-A of the Act was allowed on 02.04.2013, and their compensation was re-determined on the basis of the award of the Reference Court, even though the appeals filed by the landowners were still pending and came to be allowed by the High Court only on 22.07.2013, further enhancing the compensation to Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre.
6. Upon receipt of knowledge of the award passed by the High Court, the appellants filed another application under Section 28-A of the Act on 25.11.2013, seeking re-determination of compensation on the basis of the enhanced award passed by the High Court in MFA No. 3289/2007 and MFA No. 3291/2007 dated 22.07.2013, presumably within the period of limitation, which is to be computed by excluding the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award. In any case, the issue of limitation in filing the said application is not a matter of concern, before us, in the present appeals.
7. The second application made under Section 28-A of the Act was rejected by respondent no. 2, vide order dated 30.11.2013, on the ground that the appellants had already accepted the earlier compensation on 02.04.2013, as enhanced by the Reference Court and, that, they did not bring the pendency of the a
(1) Acquisition of land – Once an award is passed by High Court, earlier one passed by Reference Court ceases to exist, and stands subsumed within award of High Court – Same is case when an award is ....
The court confirmed the maintainability of applications under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act based on higher compensation awards from appeals, emphasizing equitable relief for disadvantaged ....
Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act allows for re-determination of compensation based on subsequent awards, promoting equity among landowners who could not challenge earlier awards.
(1) Limitation for moving application under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will begin to run only from date of award on the basis of which redetermination of compensation is sought.(2) E....
The modified award dated 5 September, 1994, superseded the original award dated 15 February, 1984, by application of the doctrine of merger. The Collector's rejection of the petitioners' application ....
Delay in application under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be condoned; strict adherence to three-month limit is mandatory.
Section 28-A permits compensation exceeding foundational award rates for proven irrigated lands or additional elements like structures/trees, without absolute cap, to fulfill beneficent intent of equ....
Limitations under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act are strict; applications must be filed within three months from the award date, not from the date of knowledge.
Land Acquisition and Requisition - Redetermination of compensation - Application for re-determination of compensation is required to be made within three months from the date of award of the Court.
Claimants can maintain applications under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, even if they had previously filed reference applications under Section 18, as long as the reference applicati....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
