Section 28A redetermination is unavailable where the same acquired land was covered by a Section 18 reference.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Deputy Collector/Land Acquisition Officer to decide his application dated 6 February 2016 under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and to disburse enhanced compensation based on the Reference Court’s award dated 31 December 2015.

The petitioner relied on the State Government’s communication dated 5 February 2019, allegedly accepting that award.

The respondent stated that the Section 28A application had already been rejected because Survey No. 146 paiki, the land in question, was covered by Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 709 of 2010, forming part of Reference Case Nos. 709 to 718 of 2010, decided on 31 December 2015.

The relevant reference application had been filed on 2 March 2010.

The petitioner had also failed to annex the Reference Court award with his Section 28A application.

During the proceedings, the petitioner contended that the person who filed Reference Application No. 713 of 2010 had no interest in the land and that the petitioner was its actual owner and occupier at the time of acquisition.

No rejoinder was filed despite an opportunity granted by the Court.

Whether the petitioner could invoke Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for redetermination of compensation when the land in question had already been the subject of a reference under Section 18 and was covered by the Reference Court’s award?

Whether the petitioner’s claim that he was the actual owner and that the person who sought the Section 18 reference lacked an interest in the land could be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 28A?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to seek disbursement or apportionment of the compensation through the Section 28A proceedings?

Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 permits redetermination of compensation on the basis of a Reference Court award for a person interested in land covered by the same Section 4(1) notification who did not seek a reference under Section 18.

The provision concerns redetermination of the amount of compensation relating to the acquired land; it does not provide a mechanism for determining title, ownership, entitlement to compensation, or apportionment and disbursement among competing claimants.

Questions concerning the claimant’s right or interest in the acquired land are to be determined at the stage of apportionment or disbursement of compensation.

The Court found that Survey No. 146 paiki was expressly covered by the existing Section 18 reference proceedings and the Reference Court award dated 31 December 2015.

Consequently, there was no proper basis for invoking Section 28A for the petitioner’s land, particularly when the compensation relating to that land had already been considered in the reference proceedings.

The petitioner’s assertion that he, rather than the reference applicant, was the actual owner raised a question of title or entitlement, not a question of statutory redetermination under Section 28A.

Such a dispute could not be resolved in Section 28A proceedings and had to be pursued independently in proceedings concerning disbursement or apportionment of the compensation.

The Court nevertheless left it open to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings for disbursement or apportionment of the compensation awarded in respect of the land.

Any such proceedings were directed to be considered independently and without being influenced by the dismissal of the writ petition.