Delayed Section 18 applications may be treated as Section 28A claims to ensure equal compensation.

The State acquired land measuring approximately 74.52 acres situated in Villages Gill-I, Gill-II, Lohara and Dugri, Ludhiana, for development of Missing Link-II, pursuant to notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“1894 Act”).

The Collector’s Award dated 7 August 2010 fixed different rates for agricultural, residential and commercial properties.

The landowners sought references under Section 18, alleging inadequate compensation.

By a common award dated 12 October 2016, the Reference Court determined the market value at ₹6,228.50 per square yard for residential property and ₹7,500 per square yard for commercial property, after applying a 50% deduction to exemplar sale prices.

GLADA filed appeals seeking reduction of the enhanced compensation, principally challenging the reliance on sale deeds, the adequacy of the development cut and the limitation of certain Section 18 applications.

The landowners filed cross-appeals seeking further enhancement and, in two appeals, claiming that their land ought to have been valued as commercial rather than residential property.

Whether the Reference Court correctly determined the market value of the acquired residential and commercial properties by relying on the exemplar sale deeds and applying a 50% development cut?

Whether the applications under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, including the two allegedly delayed applications, were barred by limitation?

Whether the landowners in RFA Nos. 3371 and 3372 of 2017 were entitled to compensation at commercial rates instead of residential rates?

Whether GLADA was entitled to reduction of the compensation awarded by the Reference Court?

The appeals were decided under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which permits an appeal against an award of a Reference Court.

Market value must be determined on the basis of reliable and comparable evidence, including bona fide exemplar sale deeds relating to property of similar nature and location.

Where the exemplar concerns developed residential or commercial property and the acquired land is not shown to be similarly developed, an appropriate deduction for development is permissible; the Reference Court applied a 50% cut in the present case.

Sections 18 and 28A of the 1894 Act provide mechanisms for securing determination and re-determination of compensation, with Section 28A intended to extend the benefit of a court-enhanced award to similarly situated landowners who did not seek a Section 18 reference.

The character of the acquired land—residential or commercial—must be established by evidence before the corresponding market rate can be awarded.

The Court found that the Reference Court had properly distinguished between residential and commercial property and had relied on genuine exemplar sale deeds concerning property situated in the same locality, including the relevant khasra numbers.

The sale deed for a 40-square-yard commercial shop indicated a rate of ₹15,000 per square yard, while the residential exemplar indicated ₹12,457 per square yard.

Since no evidence established that the acquired land was already developed, the 50% deduction was considered reasonable and, in fact, the maximum appropriate deduction in the circumstances.

The Court rejected GLADA’s contention that the Reference Court had valued agricultural land on the basis of residential or commercial rates, clarifying that the impugned award concerned only residential and commercial properties.

On limitation, the Court noted that all applications except two were admittedly filed within time.

It nevertheless upheld the treatment of the disputed applications, observing that there was no notice under Section 12(2) and that the landowners had pursued their claims while the limitation-compliant references were pending.

The Court further held that the remedial purposes of Sections 18 and 28A supported equal compensation for similarly situated landowners and that the disputed applications could, in substance, be treated as applications advancing the object of Section 28A.

In RFA Nos. 3371 and 3372 of 2017, the landowners failed to produce evidence showing that their acquired land was commercial in character.

It affirmed the Reference Court’s determination of ₹6,228.50 per square yard for residential property and ₹7,500 per square yard for commercial property, together with the applicable statutory benefits.

The Court also upheld the treatment of the limitation objections and rejected the claim in RFA Nos. 3371 and 3372 of 2017 for valuation at commercial rates.