Supreme Court Rules on Land Compensation: Section 28A Applications Must Await Appeal Outcome

The Supreme Court of India in Bharatsing S/O Gulabsingh Jakhad & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ruled on a significant issue regarding land acquisition compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The judgment clarified the course to be followed by the Land Acquisition Collector when an enhancement order is pending in appeal. The ruling ensures that landowners seeking compensation under Section 28A are treated fairly and consistently.

Background of the Case

The appellants were landowners whose properties were acquired under a Section 4(1) notification issued on January 17, 1974. The Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded compensation, which the appellants accepted without seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Act.

However, some other landowners covered by the same notification challenged the compensation and secured an enhanced rate of Rs. 5,000 per acre instead of the original Rs. 3,000-3,500 per acre through an award dated October 1, 1992, in LAR Nos. 123 and 129 of 1983 by the Second Additional District Judge, Aurangabad.

Following this, the appellants filed an application under Section 28A on December 31, 1992, seeking similar enhancement. The Collector granted the application and revised their compensation to Rs. 5,000 per acre.

Subsequent Appeals and Further Applications

While the appellants’ Section 28A application was pending, the award in LAR Nos. 123 and 129 of 1983 was challenged in appeal. The Bombay High Court, in its judgment dated March 23, 2009, further increased the compensation to Rs. 18,000 per acre.

After this ruling, the appellants filed a fresh application under Section 28A on May 27, 2009, seeking further enhancement of compensation in line with the High Court’s ruling. However, the Collector rejected their application, citing that Section 28A allows only one application. The High Court upheld this decision.

Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court

• Whether multiple applications under Section 28A can be entertained if a subsequent appeal enhances compensation.
• Whether the Collector erred in deciding the appellants’ initial Section 28A application while an appeal was pending.
• What should be the correct approach when the basis for a Section 28A claim is under judicial review?

Arguments by the Parties

Appellants’ Arguments

• Their right to seek higher compensation should not be curtailed merely because an initial application was decided while an appeal was pending.
• Since the compensation awarded in 2000 was based on an award that was later enhanced in appeal, their right to claim parity should be recognized.
• Their application was not a successive one but rather a continuation of their right under Section 28A.

Respondents’ (State of Maharashtra) Arguments

• Section 28A explicitly allows only a single application for enhancement.
• The appellants should have waited for the appeal to be decided before filing their Section 28A claim.
• Allowing multiple applications would lead to administrative complications and uncertainty.

Supreme Court’s Observations

A bench comprising Justices Kurian Joseph and R. Banumathi ruled in favor of the appellants on procedural grounds but upheld the legal principle that only one application under Section 28A is allowed.

On the Collector’s Mistake:

“The Collector ought to have kept the application pending until the appeals were decided. Since the final determination of compensation had not been reached, proceeding with the application at an intermediate stage was erroneous.”

On the Principle of a Single Application:

“While it is correct that Section 28A permits only one application, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the application dated 31.12.1992 should be reconsidered in light of the final appellate judgment.”

On the Landowners’ Right to Fair Compensation:

“Section 28A is a beneficial provision meant to protect landowners who initially did not challenge the award. Their entitlement should not be restricted due to administrative lapses.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled as follows:

• The order dated October 25, 2000, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector is set aside.
• The application filed on December 31, 1992, shall be reconsidered in light of the High Court’s judgment dated March 23, 2009.
• The Collector shall pass a fresh order within three months of receiving a copy of this judgment.
• Any amounts already paid shall be duly adjusted.

Implications of the Judgment

For Landowners

• Ensures that landowners do not lose their right to fair compensation due to procedural errors.
• Clarifies that only one application under Section 28A is allowed, but it must be based on the final compensation determination.

For Government Authorities

• The ruling underscores that Section 28A applications should not be processed prematurely when an appeal is pending.
• Land Acquisition Collectors must wait for final appellate decisions before acting on enhancement claims.

For Future Litigation

• The ruling sets a precedent that prevents administrative errors from depriving landowners of fair compensation.
• Ensures that legal provisions intended for the benefit of landowners are interpreted in a fair and just manner.

Key Takeaways

• Landowners can seek compensation enhancement under Section 28A, but only once.
• If the base award is under appeal, the Collector must hold Section 28A applications in abeyance.
• The Supreme Court set aside the Collector’s premature decision and directed fresh consideration.

This judgment reinforces fairness in land acquisition matters and ensures that landowners receive the compensation they are rightfully entitled to.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Bharatsing SO Gulab vs The State of Maharas Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 12-12-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category