State's Duty To Inform Farmers Of Right To Seek Enhancement Of Compensation In Lieu Of Land Acquisition': Bombay High Court
Saksham Vaishya
29 Dec 2025 12:41 PM IST
The Bombay High Court has held that applications seeking redetermination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be rejected on hyper-technical grounds such as non-filing of a certified copy. The Court observed that Section 28-A is a beneficial provision enacted to remove inequality in compensation among landholders and must be interpreted liberally to advance its object. It further emphasised that farmers who lose their sole source of livelihood due to compulsory acquisition must not be denied statutory benefits on procedural technicalities.
A division bench of Justices M. S. Karnik and Ajit B. Kadethankar was hearing a writ petition filed by a 96-year-old farmer whose lands were acquired for the Kitwad Minor Irrigation Tank Project, in lieu of which he was granted a compensation of ₹77,700/-. In respect of the same acquisition, a neighbouring landowner succeeded in enhancing his compensation by a judgment. Relying on the said judgment, the petitioner filed an application under Section 28-A on 1 November 2008 seeking redetermination of compensation. Though the application was admittedly filed within three months of the date of the reference court's award, the Sub-Divisional Officer rejected it on 14 February 2019 on the grounds that a certified copy of the judgment was not annexed.
The Court noted that the Application under Section 28-A of the Act was filed well within time, but the petitioner annexed the true copy of the judgment instead of submitting a certified copy.
The Court held that the authority had adopted an unduly technical approach in dealing with a farmer who had lost his sole source of livelihood on account of the compulsory acquisition. It held that the purpose of requiring certified copies is only to ascertain the limitation. The Court observed that procedure is meant to facilitate adjudication and not to frustrate substantive rights, particularly when dealing with farmers affected by compulsory acquisition. It observed:
“… procedure must not frustrate the object. Procedure is always to facilitate adjudication of the Object. The object has to be adjudicated on its own merit, but must not be frustrated on hyper technical ground.”
The Court remarked that it is the duty of the State machinery to alert and inform land-losers about their right to seek enhancement of compensation, rather than treating their claims as adversarial litigation.
“In the cases of farmers like the present Petitioner… it is for the State Machinery to alert and inform… about their right to seek enhancement in the compensation… Enhancement in compensation for land acquisition is a statutory right… Putting blame on the farmer who is already in trauma of losing his sole livelihood and disappointed due to inadequate compensation, is not at all justifiable,” the Court observed.
Accordingly, exercising its power under Article 226, the High Court quashed the order dated 14 February 2019, and remitted the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the application on merits without rejecting it on the ground of limitation or want of a certified copy.
Case Title: Tukaram Janaba Patil v. The Collector, Kolhapur & Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO. 12769 OF 2022]