Introduction

The principle underlying compulsory land acquisition is that when private property is acquired by the State for a public purpose, affected landowners must receive fair and reasonable compensation. However, under the framework of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a significant disparity historically emerged between landowners who sought judicial enhancement of compensation under Section 18 and those who did not.

In many cases, landowners lacking financial resources, legal awareness, or access to legal representation accepted the compensation awarded by the Collector, while similarly situated landowners who pursued references under Section 18 often secured substantially higher compensation from reference courts.

To remedy this inequity, Parliament introduced Section 28A through the 1984 amendment to the Land Acquisition Act. The provision enables similarly situated landowners to seek redetermination of compensation based on a judicial award obtained by other landowners arising out of the same acquisition notification.

Despite the remedial nature of Section 28A, an important interpretative question has continued to arise before courts:

Does compensation under Section 28A remain strictly confined to the rate awarded in the foundational reference award, or can higher compensation be granted where evidence justifies such enhancement?

This issue was recently examined by the Bombay High Court in Geetabai Eknath Salunke (since deceased) through LRs v. Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer & Others[1].

Justice Shailesh P. Brahme clarified that compensation under Section 28A is not capped by the foundational award and that authorities must undertake an independent evaluation of evidence relating to irrigation status, land classification, structures, wells, trees, and other improvements.

The judgment is significant for land acquisition compensation disputes, redetermination proceedings under Section 28A, valuation of irrigated agricultural land, and compensation claims for land improvements under Indian land acquisition law.

Statutory Framework Governing Section 28A

Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Collector initially determines market value and compensation payable for acquired land. A landowner dissatisfied with the award may seek a judicial reference under Section 18 for enhancement of compensation.

Recognising that many landowners were unable to pursue such remedies, Parliament enacted Section 28A as a beneficial and remedial provision permitting redetermination of compensation on the basis of a court award obtained by similarly situated landowners.

The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted Section 28A liberally in order to advance its remedial purpose. In Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari[2] and Union of India v. Hansoli Devi[3], the Court emphasised that:

However, certain earlier decisions adopted a narrower interpretation by treating the foundational reference award as a strict ceiling on compensation under Section 28A.

The Bombay High Court’s decision in Geetabai Eknath Salunke revisits and clarifies this issue.

Facts and Issues Before the Court

The dispute arose from land acquisitions carried out pursuant to a common Section 4 notification. In earlier Section 18 reference proceedings, the reference court had fixed compensation at:

These awards subsequently became the foundational awards for applications under Section 28A. However, while deciding the redetermination applications, the Sub-Divisional Land Acquisition Officer:

When the matter reached the reference court under Section 28A(3), the claims were dismissed on the ground that compensation could not exceed the foundational rates awarded in the earlier references. The High Court therefore considered three central questions:

Court’s Analysis

Section 28A as a Beneficial and Remedial Provision

The Court reaffirmed that Section 28A must be interpreted purposively in light of its remedial objective. Justice Brahme clarified that the expression “on the basis of” used in Section 28A does not require authorities to mechanically replicate the exact rate awarded in the foundational reference case. Instead, the foundational award serves merely as:

It does not operate as a binding statutory ceiling on compensation.

The Court further observed that compensation under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act extends beyond mere market value of the land and may include:

A restrictive interpretation limiting compensation strictly to the foundational award would defeat the beneficial purpose underlying Section 28A.

Higher Compensation under Section 28A

The High Court held that authorities adjudicating applications under Section 28A are not bound to award compensation identical to the foundational award without independent evaluation.

The Court emphasised that:

Accordingly, both the approach adopted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the refusal of the reference court to consider enhancement beyond the foundational rates were found to be erroneous.

Irrigation Status and Misclassification of Land

A significant aspect of the judgment concerns land classification and valuation of irrigated agricultural land.

The Court recognised that classification of land as irrigated or dry has a direct bearing on market valuation and compensation. Landowners were therefore held entitled to establish incorrect classification through evidence such as:

Failure to consider such evidence would undermine the remedial and equitable purpose of Section 28A. The judgment is therefore particularly relevant in agricultural land acquisition compensation disputes where irrigation facilities materially affect land value.

Compensation for Wells, Trees, Houses, and Improvements

One of the most important clarifications in the judgment relates to compensation for improvements attached to acquired land.

The Court held that compensation under Section 28A is not restricted only to the heads of compensation awarded in the foundational reference award. Consequently:

The Court distinguished earlier judgments that dealt narrowly with market value alone and clarified that those decisions did not prohibit compensation for improvements under Section 28A proceedings.

Final Decision of the Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court ultimately:

Most importantly, the Court expressly clarified that the foundational award serves only as a guiding benchmark and not as a cap on compensation under Section 28A.

Doctrinal Significance of the Judgment

The judgment significantly advances the jurisprudence relating to Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act by:

The ruling harmonises earlier judicial approaches and provides doctrinal clarity regarding:

Practical Implications

For Landowners

The judgment confirms that Section 28A is not merely a narrow procedural remedy. Landowners may:

For Land Acquisition Authorities and Courts

Authorities must conduct an independent assessment of evidence instead of mechanically applying rates from foundational awards. The ruling imposes a duty to consider all permissible heads of compensation under the statute.

For the State

While the judgment may increase compensation liabilities in land acquisition proceedings, it also incentivises more accurate and equitable initial valuation exercises, potentially reducing prolonged litigation and future disputes.

Conclusion

The decision of the Bombay High Court in Geetabai Eknath Salunke (since deceased) through LRs v. Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer & Others constitutes an important clarification of the scope and purpose of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

By holding that compensation under Section 28A is not automatically capped by the foundational reference award, the Court has restored the provision to its intended remedial purpose namely, eliminating inequality among similarly situated landowners affected by compulsory acquisition.

The judgment reinforces the principle that compensation must reflect the actual value of acquired land, irrigation facilities, structures, wells, trees, and other improvements based on proper evidentiary assessment.

As land acquisition disputes continue to remain a major area of litigation in India, the ruling is likely to have substantial implications for redetermination proceedings, agricultural land valuation disputes, and compensation claims arising from compulsory acquisition.

By Adnan Siddiqui, Partner – King Stubb and Kasiva

https://ksandk.com/people/adnan-siddiqui/