Quasi-judicial orders under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act must be reasoned and address limitation objections.

The Union of India challenged an order/award dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) and Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), Karera.

The land (209.80 hectares) in Village Kalothra was originally acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with an award passed on 30.03.1996.

While some landholders sought a reference under Section 18, the respondents herein later filed applications under Section 28-A of the Act for re-determination of compensation based on enhanced awards granted to other landholders by the Reference Court.

The SDO allowed these applications and enhanced the compensation.

The petitioners (Union of India) argued that the impugned order was passed without an adequate hearing and ignored the mandatory three-month limitation period prescribed under Section 28-A.

1. Whether the Sub-Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer failed to pass a reasoned and speaking order while adjudicating the jurisdictional issue of limitation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2. Whether the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice by failing to consider the specific objections raised by the petitioners.

The Court applied Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which provides for the re-determination of compensation based on the award of the "Court" (Reference Court), provided the application is filed within three months from the date of the award.

The Court relied on the principle that the term "Court" under Section 3(d) refers to the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction and not appellate courts.

The Court further applied the doctrine of natural justice as articulated in State of A.P. vs. Marri Venkaiah (2003) 7 SCC 280 and Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodrigues vs. LAO (1996) 6 SCC 746, establishing that quasi-judicial authorities must pass reasoned and speaking orders on jurisdictional facts, particularly the strict computation of limitation under Section 28-A.

The Court observed that the issue of limitation under Section 28-A is a "jurisdictional prerequisite" that goes to the root of the authority’s competence.

Upon perusing the impugned order dated 31.01.2020, the Court found that while the LAO recorded a conclusion, the order lacked "cogent reasoning" or a proper analysis of relevant dates and statutory requirements.

The LAO failed to meaningfully address the petitioners' objections regarding the expiry of the three-month window or the applicability of time exclusions for obtaining certified copies.

The Court determined that the absence of a reasoned finding on such a vital issue constituted a non-application of mind and a violation of the principles of natural justice.

Following the precedent set in a similar case (W.P. No. 29708/2022), the Court held that the decision-making process was fundamentally flawed because transparency and fairness require a quasi-judicial body to deal with all material objections in a detailed manner.

The matter was remanded to the competent authority for fresh consideration of the applications under Section 28-A with directions to afford a fresh opportunity of hearing to all parties and pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order within three months.