Limitation under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act is Jurisdictional and Requires a Reasoned Determination.

The Government of India acquired 209.80 hectares of land in Shivpuri for an ITBP arms depot under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with a notification dated 21.02.1994.

An award was passed on 30.03.1996, and Respondent No. 2 accepted compensation under protest on 26.08.2000.

While Respondent No. 2 did not seek a Section 18 reference, other landholders did; their compensation was later enhanced by the Reference Court (01.05.2000) and further by the High Court (25.10.2017).

Respondent No. 2 applied for re-determination under Section 28-A on 26.08.2000.

Following a High Court direction in 2021 to expedite the pending application, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) passed the impugned order on 16.08.2021, awarding Rs. 20,35,024/- plus interest.

The Petitioners (Union of India) challenged this, alleging the application was time-barred.

1. Whether the application for re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A was filed within the mandatory three-month limitation period from the date of the Reference Court's award.

2. Whether the Land Acquisition Officer passed a reasoned and speaking order while adjudicating the jurisdictional facts and objections raised by the petitioners.

The court primarily applied Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which mandates that an application for re-determination must be filed within three months from the date of the award of the "Court" (Reference Court).

It relied on State of A.P. v. Marri Venkaiah (2003) 7 SCC 280 and Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodrigues v. Land Acquisition Collector (1996) 6 SCC 746, which established that the limitation period is strictly computed from the date of the Reference Court’s award, not appellate orders, and the Act provides no provision for condonation of delay.

The court also invoked the principle that quasi-judicial authorities must pass reasoned orders to satisfy natural justice.

The court observed that the LAO’s order recorded a conclusion that the application was within limitation but failed to provide any analysis of the relevant dates or the statutory requirements.

The LAO did not address the petitioners' specific objections regarding Section 3(d) of the Act, which defines "Court" as the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, thereby excluding appellate orders from being the starting point for limitation.

The court found that the LAO’s failure to provide a clear basis for rejecting the limitation objection constituted a non-application of mind.

Because the issue of limitation under Section 28-A is a jurisdictional prerequisite, the absence of a reasoned finding on this point vitiated the decision-making process.

The order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Karera, for fresh consideration which shall include passing a detailed, speaking order adjudicating all objections, including limitation, within three months.