Administrative dismissal of Section 28A application for missing computation tables is invalid; Collector must conduct inquiry.

The petitioners, landholders whose lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, filed an application on 25.07.2019 under Section 28A of the Act seeking redetermination of compensation.

This application was based on a Reference Court award dated 29.04.2019 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Palitana in New LAR Nos. 85 to 89 of 2017.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) "disposed of" the application on 18.11.2019, stating it was incomplete because a computation table was not attached.

The respondents argued that a fresh application was required and noted that the underlying Reference Court award is currently under challenge in a First Appeal (at the filing stage).

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to decide their 2019 application.

1. Whether the Special Land Acquisition Officer is legally justified in rejecting/disposing of an application under Section 28A solely on the ground that the applicant failed to provide a computation table.

2. Whether the pendency of a First Appeal against the Reference Court award (where delay is not yet condoned) is a valid ground to stay the redetermination of compensation under Section 28A.

Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which mandates that the Collector conduct an inquiry into an application for redetermination of compensation if other landholders covered by the same Section 4 notification receive higher compensation from a Reference Court, regardless of whether the applicant originally sought a reference under Section 18.

The procedural requirements of Sections 18 to 28 of the Act, which apply to inquiries under Section 28A(3), placing the burden of inquiry and determination on the Collector.

The Court reasoned that Section 28A imposes a statutory duty on the Collector to conduct an inquiry into the eligibility of the applicants as "persons interested".

The Court found that the petitioners' application, which identified the relevant Reference Court award and the fact that their land was part of the same acquisition, provided sufficient information for the SLAO to proceed.

The SLAO’s demand for a computation table was deemed a mere facility for the officer, and its absence did not absolve the officer of the duty to redetermine compensation.

The Court rejected the respondents' defense of "laches and delay," clarifying that the communication dated 18.11.2019 was not a valid order under Section 28A, and therefore the application remained pending in the eyes of the law.

Regarding the pending First Appeal, the Court noted that since the appeal was only at the filing stage and delay had not been condoned, it could not be used as a reason to withhold the petitioners' claims.

It held that the communication dated 18.11.2019 was not a valid order and directed the SLAO to treat the 2019 application as pending.

The SLAO (Respondent No. 2) is ordered to undertake the inquiry under Section 28A in accordance with the law, providing the petitioners an opportunity to be heard and to submit necessary documents, to be completed preferably within eight weeks.