Failure to give reasoned findings on Section 28-A limitation vitiates the re-determination order.

Land measuring 209.80 hectares at Village Kalothra, Tehsil Karera, District Shivpuri, was acquired for a public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Land Acquisition Officer passed the original award under Section 11 on 30 March 1996.

Certain landholders sought references under Section 18, pursuant to which compensation was enhanced.

The respondent thereafter applied under Section 28-A for re-determination of compensation.

Following directions issued by the High Court in W.P. No. 2706/2019, the Sub-Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Karera, decided the application by order dated 31 January 2020.

The Union of India challenged that order under Article 226, principally alleging denial of adequate hearing, failure to consider objections, and non-application of mind on the question of limitation under Section 28-A.

The Court also allowed an application for deletion of respondent No. 10.

1. Whether the order dated 31 January 2020 passed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was vitiated by failure to adequately consider the petitioners’ objections, particularly regarding limitation and other jurisdictional issues.

2. Whether the impugned order was a reasoned and speaking order consistent with the principles of natural justice.

3. Whether the High Court should itself decide the merits of the Section 28-A application or remand the matter for fresh consideration.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, under which judicial review is available where a statutory or quasi-judicial authority acts illegally, arbitrarily, without jurisdiction, or in breach of natural justice.

Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, permits re-determination of compensation for landholders whose land was acquired under the same notification where compensation has been enhanced by a Reference Court; the limitation requirement under that provision is jurisdictional and must receive proper consideration.

A quasi-judicial authority exercising statutory power and affecting valuable rights must pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with all material objections; recording reasons is an essential component of natural justice, transparency, and fairness.

The Court also followed the approach adopted in the similar matter reproduced in the judgment, namely that disputed factual and statutory issues under Section 28-A should ordinarily be reconsidered by the competent authority rather than determined for the first time in writ jurisdiction.

The Court found that, although the Land Acquisition Officer recorded conclusions on the Section 28-A application, the order did not comprehensively address the petitioners’ objections concerning limitation and other jurisdictional questions.

It also failed to disclose adequate reasons or demonstrate proper application of mind to the material issues requiring determination.

Since limitation under Section 28-A goes to the authority’s jurisdiction, the failure to provide an independent and reasoned determination materially impaired the validity of the decision.

The defect could not be cured by the existence of conclusions unsupported by adequate reasoning.

However, because the controversy involved factual determination and application of statutory provisions, the High Court declined to decide the merits itself and considered remand to be the appropriate relief.

The matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the respondent’s Section 28-A application.

The competent authority was directed to provide all concerned parties an effective hearing, permit them to submit relevant material, and pass a detailed, reasoned, and speaking order dealing specifically with all objections, including limitation, in accordance with law.

The exercise was to be completed expeditiously, preferably within three months of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The Court expressly left all questions of fact and law open and clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits.