Successive Section 28-A applications are maintainable for parity with compensation enhanced by appellate courts.

The appellants are landowners whose property in Mavanoor Village was acquired for the Hubballi-Ankola Broad Gauge Line via a notification dated 18.04.2002

The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) awarded compensation at ₹40,000/- per acre on 31.03.2003

While the appellants did not seek a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act"), other landowners did, resulting in the Reference Court enhancing the amount to ₹2,00,000/- per acre on 17.11.2006

On 01.02.2007, the appellants filed their first application under Section 28-A seeking re-determination based on this Reference Court award

During the pendency of this application, appeals were filed in the High Court; however, the LAO allowed the appellants' first application on 02.04.2013, despite the pendency of landowner appeals

Subsequently, on 22.07.2013, the High Court further enhanced the compensation to ₹3,50,000/- per acre

The appellants then filed a second Section 28-A application on 25.11.2013 to claim parity with the High Court’s award

The LAO rejected this second application, and while a Single Judge of the High Court quashed the rejection, a Division Bench reversed the decision, holding that Section 28-A applies only to awards by a Court of original jurisdiction and not appellate decrees

The Court primarily applied Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which provides for the re-determination of compensation for non-referencing landowners to ensure parity with similarly placed owners

It interpreted the definition of "Court" under Section 3(d) in conjunction with Section 54 (Appeals), concluding that appellate decrees are continuations of the original proceedings

The Court relied on the "Doctrine of Merger," which posits that a lower court's decree merges into the operative decree of the superior court

Regarding precedents, the Court followed Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari (1995), which advocated for a beneficial construction of Section 28-A to remove inequalities

and applied the per incuriam rule to Ramsingbhai Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat (2018) for its failure to consider Pradeep Kumari and the Act's objective

The Supreme Court reasoned that the Act is dual-natured, being expropriatory regarding acquisition and beneficial regarding compensation

The Court rejected the narrow interpretation of "Court" in Section 28-A, noting that if parity is the objective, it must extend to the final judicial determination, whether by a Reference Court or an Appellate Court

Applying the Doctrine of Merger, the Court held that once the High Court enhances an award, the Reference Court's award ceases to exist independently and is subsumed by the appellate decree

The Court clarified that the "only one application" rule established in Pradeep Kumari was intended to prevent multiple applications based on different awards from the same Reference Court level, not to bar an application seeking the benefit of a subsequent appellate enhancement

The Court further noted that the LAO erred by deciding the first application while appeals were pending, contrary to the stay-of-hands principle established in Babua Ram v. State of U.P. (1995)

Finally, the Court held that statutory prescriptions for parity override principles of estoppel or waiver in this context

The Court set aside the High Court Division Bench's judgment and the LAO's rejection order dated 30.11.2013

It directed the respondents to re-determine the compensation in favor of the appellants based on the High Court’s enhanced rate of ₹3,50,000/- per acre within eight weeks

The decision in Ramsingbhai Jerambhai was formally declared not to be a binding precedent