Section 28A Land Acquisition Act Permits Compensation Beyond Foundational Award Where Land Classification Is Incorrect: Bombay High Court

The Court was hearing a batch of first appeals arising from proceedings seeking redetermination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act following a reference court award relating to lands covered under the same acquisition notification.

A Bench of Justice Shailesh P. Brahme observed that “if the clinching material is placed on record by the applicants/claimants suggesting that classification of the land is incorrect or additional compensation for trees, structure, well, etc. has been denied arbitrarily or by adopting hyper technical approach, it would be within realm of Section 28-A of the L.A. Act to award the additional compensation.”

Background

The appeals arose from land acquisition proceedings in which compensation had initially been determined by the land acquisition authority for lands acquired under a common notification. Certain landowners did not seek reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, challenging the compensation initially awarded.

Subsequently, in a reference initiated by another landowner arising from the same acquisition notification, the reference court enhanced the compensation payable for similar land. Relying upon that award, other affected landowners invoked Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act seeking redetermination of compensation.

The claimants contended that the compensation granted by the authority during the redetermination proceedings was inadequate. They further asserted that their lands were incorrectly classified and that additional compensation ought to have been awarded for factors such as wells, structures and trees situated on the acquired lands.

The authority conducting the redetermination proceedings fixed compensation by relying upon the foundational award but denied claims relating to a change in land classification and additional compensation for structures and trees. The claimants approached the reference court challenging the redetermined compensation.

The reference court dismissed the claims, holding that compensation granted under Section 28-A could not exceed the compensation fixed in the foundational award and that the inquiry under the provision was limited in scope.

Aggrieved by the rejection of their claims, the claimants filed appeals before the High Court.

Court’s Observation

The High Court examined the scope and object of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, which provides for redetermination of compensation based on an award passed by a reference court in respect of land covered by the same acquisition notification.

The Court observed that the provision was introduced as a beneficial measure intended to remove inequality in compensation where landowners who had not sought reference under Section 18 were left at a disadvantage compared with those who obtained enhanced compensation through court proceedings.

Referring to judicial precedents interpreting Section 28-A, the Court emphasised that the provision must be construed in a manner that advances its remedial purpose and ensures fair compensation to similarly situated landowners.

The Court noted that the statute employs the expression “redetermination of compensation” rather than merely referring to the market value of land. Compensation under the Land Acquisition Act includes several components beyond market value, including benefits relating to structures, trees and other improvements.

According to the Court, neither the Collector exercising powers under Section 28-A nor the court deciding a reference under Section 28-A(3) is restricted to mechanically applying the rate mentioned in the foundational award without examining the factual material placed on record.

The Court observed that where credible material indicates that the land had been incorrectly classified or that legitimate claims for compensation relating to wells, structures, pipelines or trees were denied by adopting a hyper-technical approach, such factors can legitimately be considered in proceedings under Section 28-A.

The Court further held that denying compensation for such components merely because the foundational award did not deal with them would defeat the purpose of the beneficial provision and result in unfair treatment of similarly situated landowners.

The High Court found that the reference court had adopted an unduly restrictive interpretation of Section 28-A and failed to examine the evidence placed on record by the claimants regarding the classification of land and additional components of compensation.

Conclusion

Allowing the appeals in part, the High Court held that the claimants were entitled to receive compensation at the rate determined in the foundational award where applicable.

In cases where evidence established that the acquired lands were irrigated, the Court directed payment of enhanced compensation accordingly.

In respect of claims for additional compensation relating to wells, structures, houses and trees, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the matters to the reference court for fresh determination based on the evidence on record.

The Court directed the reference court to adjudicate the claims afresh and determine the compensation payable for such factors after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing.

Cause Tirle: Geetabai Eknath Salunke (Since Deceased) v. Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:8726)

Appearances

Appellants: Advocates Anand P. Bhandari with Akash Nahar, Rushikesh Lone, Rushikesh Totla & Others

Respondents: N. D. Raje, S. N. Morampalle, S. V. Hange (A.G.Ps), Advocates Rahul A. Tambe, Sarita Gaikwad, B. V. Virdhe & Others

Click here to read/download Judgment