A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case of Banwari and Others v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) and Another primarily concerns the interpretation of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Supreme Court had to determine whether an application for redetermination of compensation under Section 28-A could be filed within three months from the date of a High Court’s judgment enhancing compensation for similarly situated landowners or if it must be filed only within three months of a Reference Court’s judgment under Section 18.

The High Court set aside the Land Acquisition Collector’s (LAC) order granting enhanced compensation to the appellants under Section 28-A. It relied on the case of Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat and Another (2018), which held that an application under Section 28-A can only be filed within three months from the judgment of the Reference Court and not from the judgment of the High Court or Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court in this case reversed the High Court’s decision, holding that the ruling in Ramsingbhai was per incuriam as it failed to consider the binding three-judge bench decision in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari and Others (1995).

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 28-A should be interpreted as a beneficial provision meant to assist landowners who could not avail themselves of the Reference Court remedy under Section 18. Consequently, the limitation period for filing a redetermination application under Section 28-A starts from the date of the latest award on which redetermination is sought, including High Court judgments that enhance compensation. The Court upheld the Land Acquisition Collector’s decision to grant enhanced compensation to the appellants and quashed the High Court’s ruling.

Keywords: Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 28-A, Per incuriam, Enhancement of Compensation, Reference Court, Redetermination of Compensation, Kundli Manesar Palwal Expressway.

B) CASE DETAILS

• Judgment Cause Title: Banwari and Others v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) and Another
• Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 13348 of 2024
• Judgment Date: 10 December 2024
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Quorum: B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
• Author: Justice B.R. Gavai
• Citation: [2024] 12 S.C.R. 463 : 2024 INSC 951
• Legal Provisions Involved: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4, 18, 28-A
• Judgments Overruled by the Case: High Court’s reliance on Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat (2018) was set aside as per incuriam.
• Case is Related to: Land Acquisition Law, Constitutional Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The dispute arose from land acquisition proceedings for the Kundli Manesar Palwal Expressway under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellants’ land was acquired, and compensation was awarded at Rs.12,50,000 per acre in 2006. Similarly situated landowners filed a reference under Section 18, but it was dismissed in 2012. However, on appeal, the High Court in 2016 enhanced the compensation to Rs.19,91,300 per acre.

The appellants, who had not filed a reference under Section 18, filed an application under Section 28-A within three months from the High Court’s judgment seeking redetermination based on the enhanced compensation. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) allowed their claim. However, the HSIIDC challenged the order in the High Court, which set it aside, holding that Section 28-A applications must be filed within three months from a Reference Court’s judgment, not the High Court’s judgment. The Supreme Court had to decide whether a Section 28-A application could be based on a High Court ruling enhancing compensation.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Land Acquisition Notification & Initial Compensation:

   • A notification under Section 4 was issued on 17th November 2004 for the acquisition of land in Majri, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar for the Kundli Manesar Palwal Expressway.
   • The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) awarded Rs.12,50,000 per acre on 1st March 2006.

2. Reference Proceedings under Section 18:

   • Some landowners sought enhancement under Section 18, but the Reference Court dismissed their claim on 17th January 2012.

3. High Court’s Decision Enhancing Compensation:

   • The Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 2nd May 2016, enhanced the compensation to Rs.19,91,300 per acre for landowners under the same notification.

4. Appellants’ Application under Section 28-A:

   • The appellants, who had not sought a Section 18 reference, filed an application under Section 28-A on 30th June 2016 (within three months of the High Court judgment).
   • The LAC allowed the application on 15th September 2020.

5. Challenge by HSIIDC in the High Court:

   • HSIIDC filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which set aside the LAC’s order, relying on Ramsingbhai (2018).

6. Supreme Court’s Intervention:

   • The appellants appealed, arguing that Ramsingbhai (2018) was per incuriam as it ignored Pradeep Kumari (1995).
   • The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether a Section 28-A application can be filed within three months of a High Court’s judgment enhancing compensation for similarly placed landowners.
2. Whether the High Court correctly applied the ruling in Ramsingbhai (2018) when setting aside the LAC’s order.
3. Whether the ruling in Ramsingbhai (2018) is per incuriam in light of Pradeep Kumari (1995).

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

• The High Court’s reliance on Ramsingbhai (2018) was incorrect, as it ignored Pradeep Kumari (1995), which allows applications under Section 28-A based on a High Court judgment.
• Section 28-A is a beneficial provision meant to aid landowners who could not file a reference under Section 18.
• The LAC’s order granting enhanced compensation was valid as the application was filed within three months of the High Court judgment.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

• Section 28-A should only apply from the date of a Reference Court’s judgment, as held in Ramsingbhai (2018).
• The High Court was correct in setting aside the LAC’s order, as the appellants’ application was based on a High Court ruling, not a Reference Court ruling.

H) JUDGMENT

Ratio Decidendi

• Ramsingbhai (2018) was per incuriam as it ignored the binding precedent of Pradeep Kumari (1995).
• The limitation period under Section 28-A runs from the date of any court award enhancing compensation, including High Court judgments.

Guidelines Laid Down

1. Section 28-A benefits landowners who could not seek a reference under Section 18.
2. Limitation runs from any court award enhancing compensation, not just Reference Court awards.
3. Section 28-A applications can be based on High Court judgments.

I) CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court upheld the LAC’s decision, quashed the High Court’s ruling, and allowed the appeal.