The Supreme Court of India has ruled that landowners are entitled to file a second application for re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, if an appellate court further enhances the award. A Bench comprising Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that receiving a previous enhancement based on a Reference Court’s award does not bar a subsequent claim for parity based on a High Court or Supreme Court judgment.
The Court emphasized that the “doctrine of merger” applies in such cases, ensuring that similarly placed landowners receive equal compensation regardless of their initial ability to seek a reference.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from the acquisition of lands in Mavanoor Village, Hubballi Taluk, for the construction of the Hubballi-Ankola Broad Gauge Line. A preliminary notification was issued on April 18, 2002, and the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) fixed compensation at ₹40,000 per acre on March 31, 2003.
While some landowners sought a reference under Section 18, the appellants did not. On November 17, 2006, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to ₹2,00,000 per acre. The appellants subsequently filed an application under Section 28-A on February 1, 2007, seeking re-determination based on this award. This first application was allowed on April 2, 2013.
However, during the pendency of that application, other landowners had appealed to the High Court of Karnataka. On July 22, 2013, the High Court further enhanced the compensation to ₹3,50,000 per acre. Upon learning of this, the appellants filed a second application under Section 28-A on November 25, 2013. This application was rejected by the LAO, and while a Single Judge of the High Court ruled in favor of the landowners, a Division Bench later set that order aside, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the appellants argued that the Division Bench of the High Court erred by relying on Ramsingbhai Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat (2018), which had been found per incuriam in later decisions for failing to consider Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari (1995). They contended that Section 28-A is a beneficial provision intended to remove inequality between affluent and “inarticulate” landowners.
The respondents, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, argued that only one application under Section 28-A is maintainable. They maintained that the appellants, having already accepted the first enhancement based on the Reference Court’s award, could not seek a second re-determination based on an appellate court’s judgment.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court rejected the restrictive interpretation of Section 28-A. Justice Sundresh, writing the judgment, observed:
“The Act is dual in nature. It is both expropriatory and beneficial… re-determination cannot be done partially qua an award of the Reference Court alone as against that of the High Court or this Court.”
Key points of the Court’s analysis include:
- Definition of ‘Court’: While Section 3(d) defines ‘Court’ as a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, the Supreme Court held that for the purposes of Section 28-A, the term must include the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Court noted that under Section 54, appeals are described as “proceedings before the Court.”
- Doctrine of Merger: The Bench held that once an appellate court renders a decision, the trial court’s decree merges with it. “Neither the law nor the Act recognizes the existence of two awards emanating from the same proceedings, simultaneously,” the judgment stated.
- Overruling Ramsingbhai Jerambhai: The Court found that the 2018 decision in Ramsingbhai Jerambhai was not a binding precedent because it did not consider the three-judge bench decision in Pradeep Kumari or the “doctrine of merger.”
- Clarifying Pradeep Kumari: The Court clarified that the “only one application” rule established in Pradeep Kumari applies to cases where there are multiple different awards from the Reference Court itself. It does not bar a subsequent application when the same underlying award is further enhanced by a superior court.
The Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s judgment and the LAO’s rejection order. It directed the respondents to re-determine the compensation for the appellants at ₹3,50,000 per acre in light of the High Court’s 2013 judgment. The re-determination must be completed within eight weeks.
The Court concluded that the object of Section 28-A is to maintain parity:
“The benefit of an enhanced compensation received by a landowner, consequent to the final award passed by the appellate forum, would also extend to similarly placed landowners who seek re-determination… The question of estoppel, waiver or acquiescence would thus not arise.”
Case Details
- Case Name: Andanayya and Ors. v. Deputy Chief Engineer and Ors.
- Case Number: Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) Nos. 2587-2593 of 2021
- Bench: Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- Date: March 25, 2026
