Section 28A redetermination extends to compensation, solatium and interest awarded for land acquired under the same notification.

The petitioner’s land and the land in The State of West Bengal v. Sraddhananda Basu, FAT 516 of 2019, were acquired under the same notification and were situated in the same vicinity.

The petitioner had accepted the Collector’s award and had not sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

She subsequently sought redetermination under Section 28A.

The authority rejected her application as premature, pursuant to an earlier order of the High Court.

In Sraddhananda Basu, a Division Bench fixed compensation at ₹5,52,544 per cottah and directed the award of specified solatium and interest, while remanding limited questions concerning possession and statutory interest.

The State’s challenge to that judgment by special leave petition was dismissed.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to redetermination under Section 28A by reference to the compensation fixed by the Division Bench for land acquired under the same notification.

2. Whether the limited remand in Sraddhananda Basu prevented the authority from redetermining compensation and awarding the relevant statutory components to the petitioner.

Section 28A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 permits an interested person who did not seek a Section 18 reference to apply to the Collector for redetermination where a court has awarded compensation exceeding the Collector’s award for other land covered by the same Section 4(1) notification; the application must be made within the statutory period.

The Court also relied on the Division Bench’s judgment in Sraddhananda Basu, which fixed compensation at ₹5,52,544 per cottah and directed 100% solatium and interest at 12% per annum under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, while leaving specified questions relating to possession and interest under Sections 72 and 80 for limited remand.

The State’s special leave petition against that judgment had been dismissed.

The Court found that the petitioner’s land and the land in Sraddhananda Basu were acquired under the same notification, and that the Division Bench’s compensation determination had attained finality.

It therefore held that the authority had sufficient material to redetermine the petitioner’s compensation using the same per-cottah rate and to award the corresponding solatium and interest.

The limited remand did not bar that exercise because, in the Court’s view, the petitioner had raised no dispute about the relevant date of acquisition or possession.

The authority’s conclusion that the application was premature failed to give effect to the Division Bench judgment.

It directed the authority to redetermine compensation at ₹5,52,544 per cottah, award 100% solatium and 12% annual interest under Section 30(3), and calculate interest under Section 80 of the 2013 Act.

The authorities were directed to pay the balance after deducting amounts already paid, by 31 December 2026; the deadline was declared mandatory.