Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Supreme Court Clarifies That Appellate Awards Are Valid Basis for Re-Determination of Compensation
Introduction
A significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India in Andanayya And Ors. Vs Deputy Chief Engineer And Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. ____ of 2026, arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2587–2593 of 2021, decided on 25.03.2026) has settled a long-standing interpretive dispute concerning Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court held that a second application for re-determination of compensation, grounded in an appellate court's enhanced award, is legally maintainable — thereby overturning the Karnataka High Court's Division Bench judgment that had relied upon Ramsingbhai Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 16 SCC 445 to deny such relief.
The judgment clarifies the interplay between Section 3(d), Section 28-A, and Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and invokes the doctrine of merger to establish that once a higher court rules on compensation, only that court's award subsists as the operative determination.
Factual Background
Lands located at Mavanoor Village, Hubballi Taluk, were compulsorily acquired for the purpose of constructing the Hubballi-Ankola Broad Gauge Line. A preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 18.04.2002. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), respondent No. 2, passed an award under Section 11 of the Act on 31.03.2003, fixing compensation at Rs. 40,000 per acre.
Certain landowners who were dissatisfied with this determination invoked Section 18 and obtained a Reference Court award on 17.11.2006 enhancing compensation to Rs. 2,00,000 per acre.
The appellants — who had not sought a reference — filed their first application under Section 28-A on 01.02.2007, within ninety days of the Reference Court's award. While this application remained pending, both the acquiring authority and the landowners filed cross-appeals before the Karnataka High Court seeking reduction and enhancement of compensation, respectively.
After the acquiring authority's appeals were dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 06.08.2012, the LAO allowed the appellants' first Section 28-A application on 02.04.2013, re-determining compensation on the basis of the Reference Court award. Crucially, at this point, the landowners' enhancement appeals were still pending before the High Court.
Subsequently, on 22.07.2013, the High Court allowed those landowner appeals and further enhanced compensation to Rs. 3,50,000 per acre in MFA Nos. 3289 and 3291 of 2007.
Upon learning of this appellate enhancement, the appellants filed a second Section 28-A application on 25.11.2013, seeking re-determination on parity with the High Court's enhanced award.
The LAO's Rejection and Subsequent Judicial History
The LAO rejected the second application vide order dated 30.11.2013. The grounds for rejection were:
- The appellants had already accepted compensation as re-determined on 02.04.2013 on the basis of the Reference Court award.
- The appellants had not brought the pendency of the landowners' appeals before the High Court to the notice of the competent authority, despite the acquiring authority itself being a party to those appeals.
The appellants challenged this rejection before the Karnataka High Court. The learned Single Judge found merit in their contentions, quashed the LAO's rejection order, and directed re-determination on the basis of the High Court's enhanced award.
However, on writ appeals filed by the official respondents, the Division Bench reversed the Single Judge's order. Relying upon Ramsingbhai Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 16 SCC 445, the Division Bench held that re-determination under Section 28-A is available only in respect of an award passed by a Civil Court of original jurisdiction under Part III of the Act, and that a judgment of an appellate court falls outside the provision's scope.
The appellants then approached the Supreme Court.
Submissions Before the Supreme Court
On Behalf of the Appellants
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that Ramsingbhai Jerambhai had been rendered per incuriam, having failed to consider the earlier three-Judge Bench decision in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, (1995) 2 SCC 736, as noted in Banwari v. Haryana SIIDC, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3685. It was further argued that the legislative object of Section 28-A — to ensure equal compensation to all similarly situated landowners — would be frustrated if appellate enhancements were excluded from its purview. Reliance was also placed on Bharatsing v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 92 for the proposition that the Collector/LAO must refrain from deciding a Section 28-A application while an appeal against the relied-upon award is pending, and must await the final appellate determination.
On Behalf of the Respondents
The learned Additional Solicitor General and senior counsel for the respondents defended the Division Bench's reliance on Ramsingbhai Jerambhai. They additionally submitted that even Pradeep Kumari — relied upon by the appellants — mandates that only one application under Section 28-A is maintainable. Since the appellants had already availed the benefit of re-determination under their first application and accepted the compensation, the second application was said to be barred.