SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 3195

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, JJ.
Rajveer Singh and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 30440 of 2024
Decided On : 07-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ajay Mishra, Shri Krishna Mishra
For the Respondents: Kaushalendra Nath Singh, Shivam Yadav

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 landowners.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 28A - Right to re-determination of compensation - Application under Section 28A rejected as not maintainable - Petitioners argued that enhancement of compensation in prior appeal should apply - Court highlighted that right to apply arises from the latest court award - Judicial interpretations establish that the appeal process is a continuation of prior proceedings - Decision affirmed by citing relevant case law. (Paras 10, 11, 22)

(B) Compensation Redetermination - Beneficent legislation aims to correct disparity in compensation among landowners due to inability to apply under Section 18 - Application for redetermination allowed within three months of relevant court award. (Paras 10, 11, 22)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the rejection of their application for compensation redetermination based on an earlier court order enhancing compensation for similarly situated owners. The petition was filed after previous compensation orders were unchallenged under Section 18.

Findings of Court:
The Court ruled that the application was maintainable as it sought parity based on enhanced awards from prior judgments. The rejection of this claim was deemed illegal.

Issues: Whether the application under Section 28A is maintainable based on past judicial awards, and whether timing for filing such applications is correctly interpreted.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court established the right to apply under Section 28A extends to awards made by higher courts, and courts interpret beneficent provisions broadly to favor those disadvantaged by prior rulings.

Result: Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Heard Shri Krishna Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajiv Kumar Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2-Noida.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.07.2022, which was served on the petitioners on 05.07.2024, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 28A of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act 1894'), has been rejected, as not maintainable, as the said application has been filed claiming re-determination of compensation by the Collector under Section 28A of the Act, 1894 on the basis of judgement and order dated 18.04.2022 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 458 of 1982 ( Malkhan vs. State of U.P. ) filed by the land owners, who are covered by the same notification.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the ancestors of the petitioners were the owners of the land in Khasra No. 51 area 0-7-0 Hectares, Khasra No. 52 area 1-2-0 Hectares, Khasra No. 53 area 0-19-0 Hectares, 54 area 1-7-0 Hectares and Khasra No. 26/1 area 0-7-0 Hectares situated at Village Naya Bans, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. The aforesaid land of the petitioners was acquired in favour of the respondent no. 2-New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vide notification dated 30.04.1976 issued under Section 4(1)/17 of the Act, 1894. After the notification the award was declared on 15.02.1977 and the entire compensation in terms of the aforesaid award was received by the grandfather of the petitioner no. 7 herein and also by the ancestors of the other petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners herein did not make any reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. However, some other land owners whose land were also acquired by the same notification, had challenged the said award by making reference to the court under Section 18 of the Act 1894, which was rejected by the Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad vide judgement and decree dated 25.11.1981. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, an appeal under Section 54 of the Act, 1894 was filed by the said land owners being First Appeal No. 458 of 1982 ( Malkhan vs. State of U.P. ). The said First Appeal No. 458 of 1982 was decided by this Court vide order dated 18.04.2022, relying upon the judgement and order dated 08.07.2019 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 593 of 1982, whereby the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 28.12 per square yard along with 30% solatium and other benefits as per the provisions of the Act.

4. In terms of the aforesaid award made in the First Appeal vide order dated 18.04.2022, the petitioners herein had filed an application under Section 28A of the Act, 1894 on 23.05.2022. Since, no order was passed on the said application under Section 28A of the Act, 1894 by the respondents, the petitioners herein filed Writ C No. 21023 of 2022, which was decided by this Court vide order dated 09.04.2024, whereby a direction was issued to the respondent to decide the said application expeditiously preferably within six weeks from the date of communication of the said order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the order dated 09.04.2024 was communicated to the respondents, the impugned order dated 29.07.2022 has been served on the petitioners on 05.07.2024 whereby the application under Section 28A of the Act, 1894 filed by the petitioners have been rejected as not maintainable as the same has been filed on the basis of the decision passed in the first appeal and not on the basis of an order passed by the reference court under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the instant case the reference filed by one said Malkhan under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, being the Land Acquisition Reference No.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top