[Land Acquisition Act] 'Compensation U/S 28A Cannot Be Restricted To Compensation Awarded In Foundational Award': Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that compensation determined in proceedings under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be restricted only to the amount awarded in the “foundational award” relied upon for redetermination. The Court observed that Section 28-A is a beneficial provision enacted to remove inequality in compensation between landowners whose lands are acquired under the same notification, and therefore, the power of redetermination cannot be narrowly construed to limit compensation strictly to the rate awarded in the foundational award.

Justice Shailesh P. Brahme was hearing a batch of First Appeals filed by several landowners challenging the judgments of the Reference Court, which had rejected their claims for enhanced compensation arising from proceedings under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The lands in question were acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 3 December 1986 for a public purpose. The original award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer did not award compensation for wells, trees, or structures situated on the lands. Subsequently, in a separate reference proceeding arising from the same acquisition notification, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation. This award was treated as the “foundational award” by the appellants, who had not earlier sought a reference under Section 18. They therefore applied for redetermination of compensation under Section 28-A. The Reference Court dismissed their claims, holding that compensation under Section 28-A could not exceed the amount awarded in the foundational award.

The Court undertook an extensive examination of the scheme of Section 28-A and reiterated that the provision was enacted as a beneficial measure to provide fair and reasonable compensation to inarticulate poor litigants.

The Court observed that the redetermination seeker is entitled to receive compensation at the same rate as fixed in the Foundational Award. It held that the cited precedents do not lay down absolute inhibition under Section 28-A to award compensation exceeding that awarded in the Foundational Award. It observed:

“The market value cannot be exceeded under Section 28-A than the one fixed in the Foundational Award… compensation determinable under Section 28-A cannot be restricted to the compensation awarded in a Foundational Award.”

The Court held that the appellants are entitled to receive a rate of Rs. 1500/- per Are for dry land or Rs. 3000/- per Are for irrigated land, which are equal to the rates in the Foundational Award. The Reference Court committed manifest illegality in depriving the appellants of awarding these rates, notwithstanding the claim of the appellants for additional compensation.

The Court further observed that if credible material is placed on record showing that the land is irrigated or that compensation for wells, structures, or trees has been denied arbitrarily, the Court is competent to award such additional compensation.

Applying these principles, the High Court partly allowed certain appeals where material on record demonstrated that the acquired lands were irrigated.

Case Title: Geetabai Eknath Salunke v. Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Vaijapur & Ors. [First Appeal No. 1328 of 2024 and connected matters]

Click Here To Read/Download Order