Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1984

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held that the limitation period for filing applications under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 begins from the date of the redetermination award relied upon, not from the original award, reaffirming the provision’s beneficial and liberal interpretation. 

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the matter of Ved Prakash Saini and 45 Others v. State of U.P. And 2 Others (2025).

What was the Background of Ved Prakash Saini and 45 Others v. State of U.P. And 2 Others (2025) Case ? 

• The Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Moradabad proposed acquisition of 47.98½ acres of land at village Majhola for constructing a Market Yard. The State Government issued a notification under Section 4(1)/17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 30th April 1977, published on 14th May 1977. Possession was taken on 10th July 1977, and the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award on 9th August 1982, fixing compensation at Rs. 15.75 per square yard. 
• Dissatisfied tenure holders filed Land Acquisition References under Section 18, which were rejected on 3rd February 1989. Review applications were filed citing that other references had been allowed at Rs. 64/- per square metre. These review applications were allowed on 14th March 1990, enhancing compensation to Rs. 64/- per square metre with statutory benefits. 
• The KUMS challenged these enhancement awards through first appeals before the Allahabad High Court, which were allowed in 2004, remanding matters for fresh determination. The Reference Court re-determined compensation at Rs. 108/- per square metre vide judgment dated 30th January 2016. Similar compensation was awarded on 19th September 2017. 
• The KUMS again filed first appeals which were dismissed by the High Court on 5th February 2020 and 8th February 2021. The Supreme Court dismissed the KUMS' Special Leave Petition on 26th October 2020, confirming the enhanced compensation at Rs. 108/- per square metre. 
• Landowners who had not filed references under Section 18 moved applications under Section 28-A of the Act on 10th February 2021, seeking re-determination based on enhanced compensation awarded to similarly situated landowners. The KUMS objected, arguing that applications should have been filed within three months of the 14th March 1990 order. The SLAO allowed the applications on 17th February 2022, re-determining compensation at Rs. 108/- per square metre with statutory benefits. 
• The landowners filed the leading writ petition for compliance, whilst KUMS filed writ petitions seeking quashing of the SLAO's order. After various proceedings, the Supreme Court remitted matters to the High Court for fresh consideration on 21st November 2024.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a beneficent provision addressing inequality in compensation awards arising from the inability of inarticulate and poor landowners to utilise the reference mechanism under Section 18. Such beneficial legislation must be construed liberally to advance its objective of extending benefits rather than curtailing intended relief. 
• The Court held that the KUMS' limitation argument was fallacious. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Banwari v. HSIIDC, the Court observed that limitation under Section 28-A commences from the date of the specific award on which re-determination is sought, not from earlier awards subsequently set aside. The order dated 14th March 1990 was judicially annulled by KUMS' own appeals and cannot serve as the foundation for computing limitation. An annulled order cannot be relied upon for subsequent proceedings. 
• The Court noted that landowners filed applications on 26th April 2016, well within three months of the Reference Court's judgment dated 30th January 2016, satisfying limitation requirements. The Court rejected the "stale claims" contention, observing that landowners could not have filed applications until a valid, final enhancement award became available. The delay was occasioned by prolonged litigation initiated by KUMS itself, making it inequitable to penalise landowners for the acquiring body's own actions. 
• The Court held that all statutory conditions for invoking Section 28-A were satisfied: lands acquired under identical notification; enhanced compensation attained finality; landowners never filed Section 18 references; and applications filed within prescribed limitation. Denying enhanced compensation would perpetuate the inequality Section 28-A was designed to eliminate. 
• The Court emphasised that compensation for land acquisition is constitutional obligation under Article 31, not gratuitous payment. The State's duty to provide just compensation is not diminished by financial considerations. It would be manifestly unjust to deny landowners enhanced compensation when their lands were acquired under identical circumstances as those receiving higher compensation. The doctrine of equal treatment demands similarly situated persons receive similar compensation. The Court expressed hope that authorities would implement the order ensuring landowners receive due compensation without further delay, observing that compensation is legal entitlement long overdue. 

What is Section 28 A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 ? 

• Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 deals with Re-determination of the amount of compensation based on the award of the court 
• Sub-section (1) 
  • Where in an award under this Part, the court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court. 
  • Proviso: In computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. 
• Sub-section (2) 
  • The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. 
• Sub-section (3) 
  • Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the court, and the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under Section 18. 
• Key Elements of Section 28-A: 
  • Eligibility: Persons interested in land covered by the same notification who are aggrieved by the Collector's award 
  • Pre-condition: They must not have made an application under Section 18 
  • Trigger: Court awards enhanced compensation to any applicant under the same notification 
  • Time limit: Three months from the date of the court's award (excluding the day of pronouncement and time for obtaining copy) 
  • Procedure: Written application to the Collector for re-determination 
  • Inquiry: Collector conducts inquiry with notice and hearing 
  • Further reference: Dissatisfied persons may seek court reference under sub-section (3)