The Supreme Court has held that a second application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking re-determination of compensation on the basis of an enhanced award passed by the High Court (or this Court) is maintainable. The Court clarified that the doctrine of merger applies, and the appellate award subsumes the Reference Court award. Mere acceptance of compensation re-determined on the basis of the Reference Court award does not operate as estoppel or waiver against seeking further enhancement on parity with similarly placed landowners who succeeded in appeal.
A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeals filed by landowners from Mavanoor Village, Hubballi Taluk, Karnataka, whose lands were acquired in 2002 for the Hubballi-Ankola Broad Gauge Railway Line. The Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court and directed re-determination of compensation at ₹3,50,000 per acre as per the High Court’s enhanced award dated 22 July 2013.
The appellants had initially sought re-determination under Section 28-A on the basis of the Reference Court award dated 17 November 2006 (₹2,00,000 per acre) and were granted the same on 2 April 2013. When the High Court, in appeals filed by other similarly placed landowners, further enhanced compensation to ₹3,50,000 per acre, the appellants filed a second application under Section 28-A on 25 November 2013. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected it. While a Single Judge allowed their writ petition, the Division Bench reversed the order, relying on Ramsingbhai Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat (2018) 16 SCC 445, holding that only one application under Section 28-A is maintainable and that appellate judgments are not covered.
Disagreeing with the High Court, the Supreme Court held:
“…we are inclined to hold that even a second application made under Section 28-A of the Act after the award passed by the High Court is maintainable and entitled to be considered by the Collector/LAO. We are of the view that, entertaining an earlier application filed under Section 28-A of the Act on the basis of the award of the Reference Court followed by the receipt of money, shall not act as a bar for the same applicant to seek further re-determination of compensation on the basis of the award passed by the High Court or this Court.”
The Court explained that Section 28-A is a beneficial provision aimed at removing inequality among similarly placed landowners. The Statement of Objects and Reasons (para ix) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 makes it clear that the provision seeks to extend the benefit of higher compensation obtained by any landowner to all others covered by the same notification. The doctrine of merger and the principle that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceeding were emphasised. Once the High Court or this Court passes an award, it becomes the operative award, and similarly placed landowners are entitled to parity.
The Court clarified that earlier decisions such as Ramsingbhai Jerambhai (supra) and observations in Bharatsing v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 11 SCC 92 did not consider the doctrine of merger or the full legislative intent and were not binding precedents on this issue. Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari (1995) 2 SCC 736 was correctly followed to the extent that the benefit flows from the final award.
The appeals were allowed. The respondents were directed to re-determine the compensation payable to the appellants at ₹3,50,000 per acre in terms of the High Court award dated 22 July 2013, with all consequential benefits.
Cause Title: Andanayya and Ors. v. Deputy Chief Engineer and Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 293 (Civil Appeal Nos. arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2587-2593 of 2021)
Click HERE for full Judgment
Lawcutor 