Second Section 28A application allowed after appellate enhancement; Delhi High Court holds earlier compensation benefit is no bar

The appellants owned land in the Revenue Estate of Village Bakkarwala, Delhi, acquired pursuant to the same Section 4 notification dated 17 June 2005, Section 6 notification dated 31 May 2006, and Award No. 1/DC(W)/2006-07.

The Land Acquisition Collector initially determined compensation at ₹15,70,000 per acre.

In a reference filed by another landowner, Kailashwati v. Union of India, the compensation was enhanced to ₹20,35,255 per acre by judgment dated 26 April 2010.

The appellants consequently sought re-determination under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which the Collector allowed on 29 May 2013 on the basis of Kailashwati.

Subsequently, in Jamna v. Union of India, decided by the High Court on 8 July 2011, compensation for land acquired under the same notification and award was further enhanced to ₹23,93,227.20 per acre.

The appellants sought the benefit of this subsequent enhancement through references under Section 28A(3).

The Additional District Judge dismissed their claims, holding that the appellants had already obtained re-determination under Section 28A and could not seek a second re-determination based on a later appellate judgment.

Whether a landowner whose compensation has already been re-determined under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act on the basis of a Reference Court award can seek further re-determination on the basis of a subsequent enhancement granted by the High Court in respect of land acquired under the same notification and award?

Whether the appellants were entitled to the enhanced compensation awarded in Jamna, notwithstanding their earlier receipt of compensation under Section 28A based on Kailashwati?

Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 permits re-determination of compensation for similarly situated landowners whose lands were acquired under the same notification, on the basis of an award enhancing compensation in a reference proceeding.

Section 28A(3) provides a mechanism for seeking a reference where the Collector’s re-determination is disputed.

The Court relied on Andanayya v. Deputy Chief Engineer, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 482, which held that a second application under Section 28A is maintainable where a subsequent appellate judgment further enhances compensation; an earlier re-determination and receipt of compensation do not bar such further relief.

The doctrine of merger applies, and the benefit of enhancement granted by the High Court or Supreme Court must extend to similarly situated landowners.

The Court distinguished Girimallappa v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2012) 11 SCC 548, because the present question concerned further enhancement after an earlier Section 28A application had already been allowed, not the appellants’ initial eligibility under Section 28A.

The statutory objective is to secure parity and equality among similarly situated landowners; estoppel, waiver, or acquiescence cannot defeat the statutory entitlement.

The appellants’ lands were covered by the same acquisition notification and award as the lands considered in Kailashwati and Jamna.

Their initial Section 28A applications had already been allowed, and those orders had not been challenged by the respondents.

Therefore, the Additional District Judge erred in treating the earlier re-determination as a bar to claiming the later appellate enhancement.

Applying Andanayya, the Court held that the subsequent enhancement in Jamna represented the final determination of compensation for similarly situated landowners and had to be extended to the appellants.

The reasoning that Section 28A primarily benefits poor or inarticulate landowners could not defeat the appellants’ entitlement, particularly because their eligibility under Section 28A had already been accepted and had attained finality.

It held that the appellants were entitled to the further enhanced compensation awarded in Jamna v. Union of India, namely ₹23,93,227.20 per acre, notwithstanding the earlier re-determination under Section 28A based on Kailashwati.

The impugned orders of the Additional District Judge were consequently set aside to that extent, with consequential reliefs granted.

Pending applications were also disposed of.