Gujarat High Court extends Section 28A compensation benefits to lands covered by separate notifications for the same project

The petitioners’ lands were acquired for construction of the Narmada Canal pursuant to a Section 4 notification dated 05 July 2008, published in the Official Gazette on 11 July 2008. Their acquisition award was passed on 26 October 2009 in LAR Case No. 64 of 2008.

Separately, another set of lands in the same village and vicinity was acquired under a separate Section 4 notification issued on the same date and for the same project; the resulting reference cases, LAR Case Nos. 90 to 99 of 2010, culminated in an award dated 11 August 2023 granting enhanced compensation.

The petitioners applied for redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, relying on the reference court’s award. Their applications were rejected by a common order dated 18 December 2023 on the ground that their lands were not covered by the same Section 4(1) notification as the lands in the reference award.

The State defended the rejection by contending that Section 28A applies only where the applicant’s land is covered by the identical notification under Section 4(1).

Whether Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applies where the petitioner’s land is covered by a separate Section 4 notification issued on the same date, for the same village, vicinity and public project as the notification forming the basis of the enhanced compensation award.

Whether the petitioners are entitled to have their applications under Section 28A reconsidered in light of the reference court’s award dated 11 August 2023.

The Court applied Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which permits persons interested in land acquired under Section 4(1) to seek redetermination of compensation on the basis of an award granting enhanced compensation in a reference proceeding.

The Court held that the expression “all the other lands covered by the same notification” must be interpreted purposively and not through a narrow, technical insistence on an identical notification number, where successive notifications relate to lands in the same village or vicinity, are issued on the same date, and concern the same public project.

The Court also relied on the coordinate Bench decision dated 17 November 2022, which rejected a similar technical objection and treated separate same-day notifications concerning adjacent lands acquired for the same project as falling within the beneficial purpose of Section 28A.

The Court found that the two notifications, although formally separate, were issued on the same date for lands situated in the same village and vicinity and for the identical public purpose—construction of the Narmada Canal.

Applying a purposive interpretation of Section 28A, it held that the State’s insistence upon an identical notification was a highly technical objection that would defeat the provision’s remedial objective of equalising compensation among similarly situated landowners.

The factual similarity between the petitioners’ lands and the lands covered by the reference award therefore justified reconsideration of the petitioners’ compensation claims.

The coordinate Bench ruling reinforced that administrative convenience in issuing separate notifications cannot deprive similarly situated landowners of the statutory benefit of enhanced compensation.

It accordingly set aside the common rejection order dated 18 December 2023 and remitted the petitioners’ Section 28A applications to the competent authority for fresh determination, keeping in view the reference court’s award dated 11 August 2023.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer was directed to determine the compensation payable to each petitioner, after issuing notice and providing an opportunity of hearing to the landowners and the acquiring body, preferably within four weeks of receiving the judgment.

All connected writ petitions were allowed.