[Land Acquisition Act] Limitation For Filing Application U/S 28A Starts From Date Of Redetermination Of Compensation: Allahabad High Court

Observing that Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 is beneficial provision, the Allahabad High Court has held that limitation for filing application under Section 28-A starts from date of award of redetermination of the compensation on which land owner relies and not the original award which may have been set aside by a higher court.

Dealing with an acquisition made in 1990, the bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held

“(a)Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 is a beneficent provision that must be interpreted liberally to achieve its object of removing inequality in compensation awards.

(b) The limitation period for filing applications under Section 28-A commences from the date of the award on which the applicant relies for redetermination, not from any earlier award.”

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Moradabad proposed acquisition of 47.98 1⁄2 acres of land for construction of a Market Yard. State Government issued a notification under Section 4(1)/17(4) of the Act, 1894 on 30.04.1977, which was published on 14.05.1977 for acquiring the land in village Majhola, Tehsil and District Moradabad. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6(1)/17 of the Act, 1894 was also issued on the same date i.e. 30.04.1977 which was also published in 1977.

Possession was taken by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti on 10.07.1977 and the award was declared by the SLAO, Moradabad under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 on 09.08.1982. Certain land owners filed a reference against the award which was rejected in 1989. Subsequent references by other land owners were also rejected.

Review applications filed by the land owners against order of 1989 were allowed and compensation was enhanced. Against this, the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti filed first appeals before the High Court which was allowed in 2004 and matter was remanded back for fresh determination.

The references were reopened and in 2016, compensation was redetermined at Rs. 108/-. The Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti again filed First Appeals which were dismissed by the High Court. Special Leave Petitions were also dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Subsequently, the land owners filed applications under Section 28-A of the 1984 Land Acquisition Act for re-determination of their compensation amount. Orders were passed setting the compensation at Rs. 108/-. This decision was challenged before the High Court where the writ petitions filed by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti were dismissed. However, the Supreme Court remanded the matters back to the High Court for fresh consideration.

The main question before the Court was “whether landowners who did not initially file references under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, can seek redetermination of compensation under Section 28-A based on enhanced awards granted to similarly situated landowners under the same acquisition notification.”

Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Banwari and others v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) and another, the bench headed by Justice Tripathi held Section 28-A being a beneficial legislation must be liberally interpreted.

The Court held that limitation of filing the application under Section 28-A starts from the date on which the redetermination order was passed and from the date of the original order. It held that taking the date of the original date of the award, which was subsequently annulled by the Court, would be absurd. Since the redetermination of enhanced compensation was made on 30.01.2016 which was being sought by the land owners, and the applications were filed on 26.04.2016, they were within time.

Further, the Court referred to Union of India and another vs. Pradeep Kumari and Others, where the Supreme Court held that

“persons entitled to apply under Section 28-A are not restricted to relying only on the earliest award but can invoke the provision based on any subsequent award that grants higher compensation, provided the application is filed within three months of such award.”

The Court discarded Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti's argument that the claims were stale as they were 27 years old. Instead, the Court held that the land owners filed the application under Section 28A of the 1984 Act, once a final award granting them enhanced compensation was available. It held that the land owners were contesting their rights and it was the Samiti which prolonged the litigation.

“Section 28-A was enacted precisely to address situations where landowners, due to various constraints, could not initially challenge inadequate compensation. The legislative intent is clear - to ensure that all landowners under the same acquisition receive equitable compensation regardless of their initial ability to pursue legal remedies. Moreover, as observed in Banwari and others (supra), the provision serves the inarticulate and poor, who form a significant portion of landowners affected by acquisitions. Denying them the benefit of enhanced compensation would perpetuate the very inequality that Section 28-A was designed to eliminate.”

The Court also held that it would not be fair and just to not extend the benefit of the enhanced compensation to other land owners whose lands were acquired by way of the same notification for the same purpose.

“While the KUMS raises concerns about financial implications, it must be remembered that compensation for land acquisition is not a gratuitous payment but a constitutional obligation under Article 31 of the Constitution of India. The State's duty to provide just compensation is not diminished by financial considerations. Moreover, Section 28-A serves the larger public policy of ensuring equitable treatment of all landowners affected by acquisition.”

Accordingly, the Court held that the land owners were well within the limitation period and were entitled to compensation Rs.108/- per square metre along with statutory benefits. The Court also imposed interest at 12% per annum from the date of default until actual payment on the Samiti in case of non-compliance of the order.

While parting, the Court observed

“Finally, this Court expresses the hope that the authorities will implement this order in letter and spirit, ensuring that the landowners receive their due compensation without further delay or harassment. The compensation awarded is not a largesse but a legal entitlement that has been long overdue.”

Case Title: Ved Prakash Saini And 45 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 35876 of 2022]

Click Here To Read/Download Order