1. Land acquisition — Reference rejected — Section 28A application based on High Court appellate order — Maintainability. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 1154
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. B. Pardiwala, K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Rajveer Singh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 13057 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18801 of 2025)
Decided On : 21-09-2026
Important Points
Limitation for redetermination under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, begins from the Reference Court's award. While a first-instance appellate enhancement may trigger limitation if the reference was rejected entirely, subsequent appellate orders merely following previous enhancements do not restart the three-month limitation period.
Subject
Land Acquisition - Compensation
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 28A and 18 - Redetermination of compensation - Limitation period - Application under Section 28A must be filed within three months from the date of the award by the Reference Court - Limitation does not generally commence from the date of an order passed in an appeal under Section 54. (Paras 13, 16)
(B) Successive Awards - The benefit under Section 28A accrues not only from the first award but also from subsequent awards made by the Reference Court, as the right of determination is not confined to the earliest award. (Paras 4, 6, 15)
(C) Scope of Section 28A - An application for redetermination is maintainable if an award has been made by the court under Part III after the coming into force of Section 28A, providing compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector, provided the applicant is interested in land covered by the same notification and did not seek a reference under Section 18. (Para 10)
(D) Limitation and Appellate Orders - Where a reference under Section 18 is rejected in toto without enhancement, a cause of action under Section 28A arises only when enhancement is granted for the first time by the High Court in a first appeal. However, subsequent appellate orders that merely rely on a prior appellate order of enhancement do not create a fresh cause of action or restart the limitation period. (Paras 21, 23) (E) Limit on Applications - Only one application can be moved under Section 28A for redetermination of compensation by an applicant. (Paras 10, 32)
Facts of the case:
Landowners whose lands were acquired under a specific notification accepted compensation without seeking a reference under Section 18. Other landowners sought a reference which was rejected by the Reference Court. Subsequently, the High Court enhanced the compensation in a first appeal. The applicants filed an application under Section 28A within three months of an appellate order that merely followed and relied upon a previous appellate order of enhancement passed several years earlier.
Findings of Court:
The first enhancement of compensation by the High Court occurred in 2019, and the three-month limitation period expired thereafter. The subsequent order in 2022, which merely relied on the 2019 order, did not trigger a fresh limitation period. The application was therefore barred by limitation.
Issues: Whether an application under Section 28A is maintainable based on an appellate order and whether successive appellate orders that merely rely on previous enhancements create a fresh cause of action for the purpose of limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: Limitation for filing an application under Section 28A begins from the date of the award of the Reference Court. In specific cases where the reference was rejected entirely, the first enhancement by the High Court defines the commencement of limitation. Subsequent orders that do not independently grant further enhancement but merely follow previous decisions do not restart the limitation clock.
Result: Appeal allowed, setting aside the impugned order and rejecting the application under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894.
(B) Successive Awards - The benefit under Section 28A accrues not only from the first award but also from subsequent awards made by the Reference Court, as the right of determination is not confined to the earliest award. (Paras 4, 6, 15)
(C) Scope of Section 28A - An application for redetermination is maintainable if an award has been made by the court under Part III after the coming into force of Section 28A, providing compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector, provided the applicant is interested in land covered by the same notification and did not seek a reference under Section 18. (Para 10)
(D) Limitation and Appellate Orders - Where a reference under Section 18 is rejected in toto without enhancement, a cause of action under Section 28A arises only when enhancement is granted for the first time by the High Court in a first appeal. However, subsequent appellate orders that merely rely on a prior appellate order of enhancement do not create a fresh cause of action or restart the limitation period. (Paras 21, 23) (E) Limit on Applications - Only one application can be moved under Section 28A for redetermination of compensation by an applicant. (Paras 10, 32)
Facts of the case:
Landowners whose lands were acquired under a specific notification accepted compensation without seeking a reference under Section 18. Other landowners sought a reference which was rejected by the Reference Court. Subsequently, the High Court enhanced the compensation in a first appeal. The applicants filed an application under Section 28A within three months of an appellate order that merely followed and relied upon a previous appellate order of enhancement passed several years earlier.
Findings of Court:
The first enhancement of compensation by the High Court occurred in 2019, and the three-month limitation period expired thereafter. The subsequent order in 2022, which merely relied on the 2019 order, did not trigger a fresh limitation period. The application was therefore barred by limitation.
Issues: Whether an application under Section 28A is maintainable based on an appellate order and whether successive appellate orders that merely rely on previous enhancements create a fresh cause of action for the purpose of limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: Limitation for filing an application under Section 28A begins from the date of the award of the Reference Court. In specific cases where the reference was rejected entirely, the first enhancement by the High Court defines the commencement of limitation. Subsequent orders that do not independently grant further enhancement but merely follow previous decisions do not restart the limitation clock.
Result: Appeal allowed, setting aside the impugned order and rejecting the application under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- land acquisition
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Binay Kumar Das, AOR Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv. Ms. Neha Das, Adv. Mr. Shivam Saksena, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikram Patralekh, Adv. Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, AOR Mr. Shivam Yadav, Adv. Mr. Bimlendu Thakur, Adv. Mr. Amar Kumar, Adv. Mr. Amit V Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Faraj Navi, Adv. Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, AOR Mr. Abhinav Singh, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Binay Kumar Das, AOR Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv. Ms. Neha Das, Adv. Mr. Shivam Saksena, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikram Patralekh, Adv. Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, AOR Mr. Shivam Yadav, Adv. Mr. Bimlendu Thakur, Adv. Mr. Amar Kumar, Adv. Mr. Amit V Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Faraj Navi, Adv. Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, AOR Mr. Abhinav Singh, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether limitation for Section 28A runs from Reference Court award or from High Court appeal order. (Para 4 , 5 , 23 , 24 )
3. Section 28A invoked from Reference Court award, not High Court appeal; exception for rejected reference creating first enhancement on appeal. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 )
4. Limitation under Section 28A runs from Reference Court award; only exception when reference rejected, first enhancement comes from High Court. (Para 12 , 13 , 16 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 34 )
5. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside, Section 28A application rejected. (Para 35 )
6. From which order does limitation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 commence?
Limitation under Section 28A runs from the date of the Reference Court's award under Section 26, not from the High Court's order in a first appeal under Section 54. (Para 12 , 13 , 16 )
7. Can an application under Section 28A be based on a High Court order when the reference under Section 18 was rejected?
Yes, when the reference under Section 18 is rejected without any enhancement, the first enhancement occurs via the High Court in first appeal, creating a Section 28A entitlement. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 )
8. Does each successive order of the High Court in first appeal create a fresh cause of action under Section 28A?
No, successive High Court orders in first appeal do not create fresh causes of action under Section 28A, as the High Court is bound by its coordinate bench's earlier order. (Para 22 , 34 )
9. Can a landowner file a second application under Section 28A after the High Court enhances compensation in appeal?
No, only one application under Section 28A is permitted; if filed in time, the Collector must keep it in abeyance pending appeal rather than allowing a fresh application. (Para 18 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 32 )
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant is the requestioning authority, which is aggrieved by the application filed by the party respondents; directed to be entertained under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 18941[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1894’] and allowed, by the impugned order.
3. The party respondents claim under their predecessors-in-interest whose lands were proceeded against under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 of the Act of 1894 and acquired. An award was passed on 15.02.1977 and the entire compensation, admittedly, was received by the predecessors-in-interest, who did not file any application for reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. But others, whose lands were also acquired by the very same notification, sought a reference under Section 18, which though referred, was rejected by the Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, by a judgment and decree dated 25.11.1981. An appeal was filed therefrom under Section 54 of the Act of 1894, being First Appeal No.458 of 1982, which by Annexure P1, was disposed of on 18.04.2022. The party respondents, hence, filed an application under Section 28A of the Act of 1894 on 23.05.2022, within three months from the date of Annexure P1. No consideration having been carried out, the applicants filed a writ petition, in which expeditious decision was ordered. The application under Section 28A, subsequently stood rejected as not maintainable since it was filed on the basis of the decision passed in First Appeal and not based on an order passed by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act of 1894.
4. Various decisions were relied on by the applicants before the High Court, in a challenge to the order of the Collector. The High Court, by the impugned order, found that the decision of a three Judge Bench in Union of India and Another v. Pradeep Kumari and Others, (1995) 2 SCC 736, regulated the issue. Therein the three Judge Bench had categorically found that the benefit under Section 28A accrues not only from the first award passed on reference under Section 18 but also from any one of the awards after coming into force of Section 28-A, right of determination not being confined to the earliest award made by the Court. The said view was reaffirmed in Banwari and Others v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3685 wherein on an identical situation of the reference being rejected, the entitlement to file an application within three months from an award passed in an appeal by the High Court, was permitted.
5. The questions, as to who would be entitled under Section 28A and when the limitation commences, have engaged this Court’s attention in numerous cases. The decisions having come from Benches of varying strength, we need to look at those decisions to put the law in the correct perspective.
6. Pradeep Kumari (supra) was by a three Judge Bench, wherein the award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) and the respondents therein did not seek a reference under Section 18, but other landowners did. Some of the references were disposed of prior to 24.09.1984, on which date, the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, introduced Section 28A in the Act of 1894. The Union of India (UoI) contended that the earliest award by the Reference Court after Section 28A came into force, was on 27.12.1984. The application filed by Pradeep Kumari was within the period of three months from a subsequent award dated 21.02.1987. The Collector, under Section 28A awarded enhanced compensation, equal to that in the subsequent award. An appeal was filed before the High Court by the UoI. One other landowner, Savitri Devi, sought for the benefit of a decision dated 05.09.1986 of the High Court in an appeal, to be extended to her, which application under Section 28A was dismissed by the Collector, finding that Section 28A would be available only on the basis of the award of the Refe
