Case at a Glance
Landowners whose land was acquired for NOIDA in the 1970s had accepted compensation without seeking a reference, and in 2022 applied under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 relying on a High Court first appeal decision of 18 April 2022. The Supreme Court held that Section 28A ordinarily runs only from an award of the Reference Court; the narrow exception recognised in Banwari applies only where the first enhancement itself comes from the High Court in appeal. Because the first High Court enhancement had come on 8 July 2019, the three-month limit expired on 7 October 2019, and the later appeal order could not give a fresh cause of action. NOIDA’s appeal was allowed and the Section 28A application was rejected.
The respondents’ predecessors lost their land under a notification issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Collector passed the award on 15 February 1977. They received the full compensation and did not ask for a reference under Section 18. Other landowners of the same village affected by the same notification did seek a reference, but the Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad rejected it by judgment dated 25 November 1981. Those landowners appealed to the High Court.
The High Court enhanced compensation in First Appeal No. 593 of 1982 on 8 July 2019, and then disposed of First Appeal No. 458 of 1982 on 18 April 2022 by following that earlier decision. On 23 May 2022, the respondents applied under Section 28A for redetermination of compensation on the basis of the 2022 decision. The Collector rejected the application as not maintainable because it rested on a first appeal decision rather than an award of the Reference Court. The High Court, relying on Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari and Banwari v. HSIIDC, allowed the landowners’ challenge, and NOIDA appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can landowners who never sought a reference invoke Section 28A on the basis of a later High Court first appeal decision that merely followed an earlier enhancement, and when does the three-month limitation start?
Section 28A Runs From the Reference Court’s Award, With One Narrow Exception
Writing for the Bench, Justice K. Vinod Chandran traced the law from the three-Judge Bench decision in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, (1995) 2 SCC 736, through Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese v. Land Acquisition Collector, (1996) 11 SC CK 0127, (1996) 6 SCC 746, and the Constitution Bench in Union of India v. Hansoli Devi, (2002) 09 SC CK 0072, (2002) 7 SCC 273. The Court held that “Section 28A hence, can be invoked only from an award of the Reference Court.” Where a Section 18 reference is rejected outright, “no cause of action arises under Section 28A”. The only exception, recognised in Banwari v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, (2024) 12 SC CK 0012, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3685, is where the reference was rejected without enhancement and the first enhancement came from the High Court in appeal. The Court described this as filling a gap (a casus omissus) so that the beneficial provision is not defeated.
Here, the 2022 first appeal decision gave no new entitlement; it simply followed the decision of 8 July 2019. Applying Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 08 SC CK 0025, (2013) 10 SCC 765, the Court held that limitation runs from the date of the award, not from the date of knowledge, so the three-month period ended on 7 October 2019. The Court held that “there is no question of successive orders in First Appeal, conferring fresh cause of action under Section 28A”, because a High Court bench is bound to follow an earlier coordinate bench decision. It was “unable to accept” the contrary proposition in Andanayya v. Deputy Chief Engineer, (2026) 03 SC CK 1462, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 482, finding it in conflict with three-Judge Bench and coordinate Bench decisions, and declined to refer the issue to a larger Bench.
What the Court Actually Held
- Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can ordinarily be invoked only on the basis of an award of the Reference Court enhancing compensation.
- The Banwari exception applies only where the reference was rejected without enhancement and the first enhancement is granted by the High Court in appeal.
- Limitation of three months runs from the date of the first enhancing decision, not the date of knowledge; later appeal orders that merely follow it give no fresh cause of action.
- NOIDA’s appeal was allowed, the High Court’s order was set aside and the respondents’ Section 28A application was rejected.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It clarifies when non-referring landowners in old acquisitions can still claim parity in compensation under Section 28A.
- It stops a chain of fresh limitation periods being created by every later first appeal decision that follows an earlier one.
- It disapproves the wider reading in Andanayya, bringing clarity for acquiring bodies and Collectors dealing with pending Section 28A claims.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Landowners
- Watch for the first enhancement of compensation for your village under the same notification; the three-month clock starts from that decision.
- Waiting for a later appeal order in another landowner’s case will not save a delayed Section 28A application.
For Counsel
- Identify whether the reference was rejected in full and where the first enhancement came from before advising on Section 28A.
- Rely on Pradeep Kumari, Popat Bahiru Govardhane and this ruling when opposing applications based on successive appellate orders.
Key Takeaways
- Section 28A is tied to an award of the Reference Court enhancing compensation.
- If the reference was rejected and the High Court first enhances in appeal, that appellate decision can found a Section 28A claim.
- Only the first such enhancement counts; successive first appeal decisions following it do not restart limitation.
- Limitation runs from the date of the award or decision, not from when the landowner learns of it.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
It lets a landowner who did not seek a reference under Section 18 apply to the Collector, within three months, for redetermination of compensation when another landowner under the same notification obtains higher compensation from the Reference Court.
Can a High Court appeal decision be the basis for Section 28A?
Only in the narrow situation recognised in Banwari, where the reference was rejected without any enhancement and the first enhancement came from the High Court in appeal.
Does every later appeal order give a fresh three-month period?
No. The Court held that successive orders in first appeal that follow an earlier enhancement do not create a fresh cause of action under Section 28A.
Conclusion
The ruling confines Section 28A to its text and purpose. The provision remains a beneficial remedy for landowners who could not afford to seek a reference, but it must be used within three months of the first enhancement, and later decisions that only follow that enhancement cannot revive a lapsed claim.
Practical takeaway: In any Section 28A matter, first fix the date of the first enhancing award or appellate decision for the same notification; an application filed more than three months after it will fail, whatever later orders say.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com