The court affirmed that awardees under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act are entitled to seek redetermination of compensation under Section 28A, emphasizing the beneficial intent of the legislation to ensure fairness in compensation.

JUDGMENT :

C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. Whether an Award passed in terms of Section 11 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) is outside the scope of Section 28A of that Act, is the question involved in this writ petition. The question, in fact, received consideration by a learned Single Judge in Beena Sarasan v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 231] wherein it was answered in the negative, holding that does not make any distinction between an Award passed under (1) or (2), and therefore, an awardee under (2) is also entitled to seek re-determination of compensation as per of the Act.

2. The following is the factual matrix:

The landed property, having an extent of 1.60 ares, in the name of Sri.Jayakumar, was acquired for the development of JNNURM/KSUDP project of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. Compensation was fixed at Rs.2,61,058/- and the same was received. While so, Sri.Jayakumar passed away. The petitioners are his legal heirs. Admittedly, no reference under Section 18 has been preferred. The petitioners would contend that they could not seek reference under Section 18 due to the chronic kidney disease of Sri.Jayakumar, which ultimately took his life. Ext.P9 is the judgment rendered in a connected land acquisition reference, based upon which the petitioners preferred Ext.P10 application under Section 28A of the Act. The same was dismissed vide the impugned Ext.P11 Order, citing that, an awardee under Section 11 (2) of the Act cannot seek further statutory benefits, inasmuch as the compensation amount is received, on consent.

3. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the issue requires reconsideration in the light of the following judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court: (1). State of Gujarat v. Daya Shamji Bhai [1995 KHC 951]and (2). Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Transport Department v. P.R.Jaganathan [2025 KHC OnLine 6952]

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. Perused the records.

5. Straightaway, reference can be made to Daya Shamji Bhai (supra). In that case, an Award was passed in terms of Section 11 (2) of the Act; and the question involved was whether the awardees are entitled to seek a reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act. The discussion at paragraph no.7 is extracted here below:

“7. The Reference Court negatived the contention of State and its reliance on agreement of the parties on the ground that since the said agreements were not registered under Registration Act, they cannot contract out from statute. Therefore the Reference Court has the power to award higher compensation. It is seen in the contract they had agreed to receive compensation and 25 per cent more in addition thereto. They had also agreed not to seek any reference under S.18. In the light of the above, no option is left to the parties under S.18 to seek reference. Sub-section (2) of S.11 gives right to the parties to enter into an agreement to receive award compensation awarded under S.11 in terms of the contract. In fact, it would be more expeditious to have the dispute sorted out as to avoid delay in determination of proper compensation. The contract between the owners and the Collector in writing the terms to be included in award of the Collector is conclusive and binds the parties. They would not be entitled to seek any reference for enhancement of the compensation required to be adjudicated under S.23(1) of the Act. It would be seen that when