Section 28A benefits extend to similarly situated lands acquired under successive notifications for the same project.

The petitioners challenged the order dated 18 December 2023 rejecting an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, originally filed by their deceased father for re-determination of compensation.

The application relied on the Reference Court award dated 11 August 2023 in LAR Case Nos. 90–99 of 2010.

The authority rejected the application on the ground that the petitioners’ land had been acquired under a separate Section 4 notification from the notification pertaining to the land covered by the Reference Court award.

Both notifications, however, were issued on the same date, concerned lands situated in the same village and vicinity, and related to the same Narmada Canal project.

The Court noted that the same issue had already been decided in favour of similarly situated landowners in Special Civil Application No. 7507 of 2026, decided on 3 August 2026.

Whether an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can be entertained where the applicant’s land was acquired under a separate but contemporaneous notification concerning land in the same village, vicinity and public project as the notification forming the basis of the Reference Court award?

Whether the rejection of the petitioners’ Section 28A application solely because no reference had been made in respect of their specific acquisition notification was legally sustainable?

The Court applied Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which enables persons whose lands are covered by the relevant acquisition notification but who did not seek a reference under Section 18 to obtain re-determination of compensation on the basis of a Reference Court award enhancing compensation.

The Court held that the expression “all the other lands covered by the same notification” must be interpreted purposively and may include lands covered by successive or separate notifications issued on the same date, in the same area, for the same public purpose and project.

The Court relied on the coordinate Bench decision dated 17 November 2022, which rejected a technical distinction between separate notifications issued for adjacent lands in the same village and for the same irrigation project, holding that such a distinction would defeat the object of Section 28A.

It also followed the Court’s earlier judgment dated 3 August 2026 in Special Civil Application No. 7507 of 2026, which applied the same principle to the notifications concerning the Narmada Canal project.

The Court found that the authority’s objection was based solely on the fact that the petitioners’ land and the land covered by the Reference Court award were acquired under distinct notifications.

Applying a purposive interpretation of Section 28A, the Court held that this distinction was merely technical because both notifications were issued on the same date, related to land in the same village and vicinity, and served the same public purpose—construction of the Narmada Canal.

Denying the benefit of the enhanced compensation merely because of separate notification numbers would defeat the remedial object of Section 28A and produce unequal treatment between similarly situated landowners.

The Court therefore followed its earlier decision and held that the petitioners were entitled to have their application reconsidered with the benefit of the Reference Court award dated 11 August 2023.

The order dated 18 December 2023 rejecting the Section 28A application filed by the petitioners’ father was set aside.

The matter was remanded to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for fresh disposal, while keeping in view the Court’s direction to grant the benefit of the Reference Court award dated 11 August 2023.

The competent authority was directed to determine the compensation payable to the petitioners, after providing notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the acquiring body, preferably within four weeks from receipt of the judgment.

No order as to costs was made.