Later High Court order cannot revive expired Section 28A land compensation claim, Supreme Court rules

The respondents claimed through predecessors whose lands were acquired under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Collector made an award on 15 February 1977, and the predecessors accepted the compensation without seeking a reference under Section 18.

Other landowners covered by the same notification sought references, but the Additional District Judge rejected them on 25 November 1981. In an appeal under Section 54, the High Court subsequently enhanced compensation in First Appeal No. 593 of 1982 on 8 July 2019. First Appeal No. 458 of 1982 was later disposed of on 18 April 2022 by relying on that earlier appellate decision.

The respondents filed an application under Section 28A on 23 May 2022, within three months of the 2022 order. The Collector rejected it as not maintainable because it was based on a High Court appellate order rather than an award of the Reference Court. The High Court allowed the respondents’ challenge, relying principally on Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari and Banwari v. HSIIDC. The Authority appealed to the Supreme Court.

Whether an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can ordinarily be founded on an appellate order of the High Court under Section 54, rather than on an award of the Reference Court under Section 26 pursuant to a reference under Section 18?

Whether, where the first reference under Section 18 is rejected without enhancement and compensation is enhanced for the first time by the High Court, a landowner who did not seek a reference may invoke Section 28A within three months of the High Court’s order?

Whether a later High Court order merely following an earlier appellate enhancement creates a fresh cause of action and a fresh limitation period under Section 28A?

Section 28A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 permits a person who did not seek a reference under Section 18 to apply for redetermination where, in a reference concerning land covered by the same Section 4 notification, the Reference Court has awarded compensation in excess of the Collector’s award; the application must be made within three months of the relevant Reference Court award and only one such application is permissible.

In Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, the Supreme Court held that successive awards of the Reference Court may independently trigger Section 28A, provided the statutory conditions are satisfied.

In Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese v. Land Acquisition Collector and Hansoli Devi, the Court held that limitation ordinarily commences from the award of the Reference Court under Section 26, not from the appellate order under Section 54.

Popat Bahiru Govardhane requires limitation to be applied strictly from the statutory date, irrespective of the applicant’s date of knowledge.

However, Banwari recognises a limited situation where the Section 18 reference was rejected without enhancement and the first enhancement occurred in the High Court; in that circumstance, Section 28A may be invoked within three months of the High Court’s first enhancing order.

Under Bharatsing, if a timely Section 28A application is filed while an appeal against the Reference Court’s award is pending, the Collector should keep the application in abeyance so that any appellate enhancement may be given effect to.

Section 28A(3), which permits a further reference against the Collector’s redetermination, also supports the conclusion that the statutory scheme is structured around an award of the Reference Court, not a direct application founded solely on an appellate order.

The Supreme Court distinguished the respondents’ case from Pradeep Kumari, which concerned successive awards of the Reference Court and later enhancements arising from different references.

Here, the first enhancement occurred in First Appeal No. 593 of 1982 on 8 July 2019. The later order dated 18 April 2022 in First Appeal No. 458 of 1982 did not independently enhance compensation; it merely followed the earlier appellate decision concerning the same village and notification.

Although Banwari permits a Section 28A application where the Section 18 reference was wholly rejected and the first enhancement is made by the High Court, that exception did not create a fresh limitation period upon every subsequent appellate order.

Applying Popat Bahiru, the respondents’ three-month period commenced on 8 July 2019 and expired on 7 October 2019.

The order of 18 April 2022 could not revive the barred claim, particularly because the High Court, as a Court of Record, was bound by the earlier coordinate Bench decision and did not grant a new enhancement.

The appeal was allowed, the High Court’s impugned order was set aside, and the respondents’ application under Section 28A was rejected. Pending applications, if any, were also rejected.