Section 28-A Limitation for Compensation Re-determination Runs From Reference Court Award, Not Appellate Orders

The Government of India acquired 209.80 hectares of land in District Shivpuri for an Indo-Tibetan Border Police arms depot via a 1994 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Respondent No. 1 (landowner) accepted the initial 1996 compensation award under protest but did not seek a reference under Section 18.

Other landowners secured enhanced compensation through a Reference Court award (01.05.2000) and a subsequent High Court appeal (25.10.2017).

Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 28-A for re-determination of compensation on 26.08.2000.

After a 2019 High Court direction to expedite the matter, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) passed the impugned order on 13.12.2023, awarding enhanced compensation of Rs. 9,25,958/- plus interest.

The 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 failed to provide a reasoned order addressing the petitioners' objections regarding limitation and principles of natural justice.

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

The court 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 establish that limitation is strictly computed from the date of the Reference Court’s award, not subsequent appellate orders under Section 54.

The court also emphasized the administrative law principle that quasi-judicial authorities must pass reasoned, speaking orders to satisfy the principles of natural justice.

The court found that the LAO’s order lacked the necessary legal rigor to determine the jurisdictional issue of limitation.

While the LAO concluded the application was timely, the order failed to provide a chronological analysis or address the petitioners' specific objections regarding the gap between the 01.05.2000 award and the 26.08.2000 filing.

The court noted that the LAO erroneously failed to distinguish between a Reference Court award and an High Court appellate judgment for the purposes of Section 28-A.

By passing a "mechanical and cursory" order that ignored settled Supreme Court precedents on strict limitation, the LAO committed a jurisdictional error.

The court determined that without a reasoned finding on whether the three-month window was met (excluding time for certified copies), the decision-making process was fundamentally flawed.

The court held that the issue of limitation under Section 28-A is a jurisdictional prerequisite that must be decided through a reasoned, speaking order.

The matter was remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Karera, for fresh consideration.

The LAO is directed to afford all parties an opportunity to be heard and pass a detailed order specifically adjudicating the issue of limitation within three months.

The Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly.