Redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be claimed based on a Lok Adalat consent award, but may be sought based on a valid reference court award for comparable land under the same notification.

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 06.09.2025/06.10.2025 passed by the respondent no.1, Dy. Collector/Special Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that the Land Acquisition Officer has committed an error in ignoring the fact that with respect to the same acquisition, another reference court award enhancing compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short as the “Act’ 1894”).

3. The submission is that the application filed under Section 28A of the Act’ 1894 by the petitioner on 11.08.2017, as such, could not have been rejected on the premise that the reference court award dated 08.07.2017, benefit of which has been sought, is a consent award rendered in the Lok Adalat.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the provisions of Section 28A of the Act’ 1894 are based on the principle of parity, inasmuch as, the Collector is required to make redetermination of compensation on the basis of enhanced compensation awarded by the reference court under Section 18 of the Act’ 1894, even if the persons interested in the lands covered by the same notification had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18. The submission is that the only requirement for redetermination of compensation under Section 28A is that a written application is filed to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the reference court.

5. The submission, thus, is that the Collector is mandated to award enhanced compensation upon making an inquiry as to whether the applicant(s) is/are persons interested in the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4(1), with respect to which the enhanced compensation is awarded by the reference court under Section 18 of the Act’ 1894.

6. The submission is that the petitioners herein are claiming benefits of the reference court award dated 14.11.2017 passed in LAR No. 158/2017 arising out of an Award No. 38 of 2001, which was with respect to the same notification under Section 4(1) of the Act’ 1894, for acquiring the land of the same village for the same purpose.

7. Inviting attention of the Court to the copy of award dated 14.11.2017 passed in LAR No. 158/2017 appended as Annexure ‘M’ to the writ petition, it is sought to be demonstrated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Reference Court award categorically records that the compensation at the rate of Rs.8.00 paisa per sq. mtr. as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, was highly unjust and inadequate. It was further noted that the claimant had deposed before the reference court that he had taken three crops in a year. The learned District Government Pleader appearing for the opponent/acquiring body had cross-examined the claimant, wherein the claimant had admitted that he had not produced any copy of sale deeds or any other evidence in support of his claim.

8. However, it was further noted that in LAR No. 1162/2017, taking into consideration of the settlement of the parties, the Court granted additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 171/- per sq. mtrs. It was also noted that the lands, subject matter of consideration, in the reference court judgement in LAR No. 1162/2017 are similarly situated in the same village as of the land subject matter of consideration in LAR No. 158/2017, being of the same fertility, locality and future adaptability. These aspects of d