Landmark judgment on Land Acquisition; it clarifies the scope of Section 28-A, enabling landowners to claim enhanced compensation based on subsequent court awards for similar lands.

The appeal before the Supreme Court stems from a land acquisition matter from Haryana. The appellants, Banwari and others, had their land acquired for the Kundli Manesar Palwal Expressway project in 2004. While they were initially awarded compensation, similarly situated landowners challenged the compensation amount in court and secured a higher sum through a High Court judgment in 2016. The appellants, having not filed their own challenge earlier, then applied for a revised compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 based on the High Court's decision.

The Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC) challenged this application, and the High Court initially sided with HSIIDC, relying on a 2018 Supreme Court judgment in case of Ramsingbhai Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat(Click to Download) that seemingly restricted the application of Section 28-A to awards made by the original trial court, not by appellate courts. This led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court made following observations:

On The Scope of Section 28-A: The Supreme Court acknowledged that its earlier judgment in Ramsingbhai Jerambhai supra had not considered a previous three-judge bench decision in Pradeep Kumari and Others (1995). This earlier case had established that Section 28-A aims to prevent discrepancies in compensation for similar lands acquired under the same notification.

The Apex Court emphasized that Section 28-A is a Beneficial Legislation designed to protect the rights of landowners, especially those who may not have the resources to initiate legal challenges independently. The Court stated that such provisions should be interpreted in a manner that expands their benefits rather than restricting them.

On Timely Access to Enhanced Compensation; the Apex Court clarified that the right to apply for enhanced compensation under Section 28-A arises from the date of any court award granting a higher amount, irrespective of whether it was the initial trial court or an appellate court. This means landowners like the appellants can rely on subsequent judgments that award higher compensation to similar lands, ensuring they receive a fair and equal amount.

Overruling its conflicting precedent,

Supreme Court, citing its own decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others (Click to Download),

highlighting the principle that When judgments of co-equal benches conflict, the earlier judgment holds precedence. Since Pradeep Kumari and Others predates Ramsingbhai Jerambhai, the Court ruled that the principles laid out in the former case regarding Section 28-A remain binding.

Thus the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Banwari and others, thereby setting aside the High Court's order that favored HSIIDC and upheld the Land Acquisition Collector's decision to grant the appellants enhanced compensation based on the 2016 High Court judgment.

This Supreme Court's judgment reinforces the importance of Section 28-A in protecting landowner's Rights to Fair and Equal Compensation during land acquisition proceedings. It also clarifies that landowners can rely on any court judgment (trial or appellate) awarding higher compensation for similar lands acquired under the same notification to seek revised compensation.

The Court reasserted the principle of interpreting beneficial legislation in a manner that maximizes the intended benefits for the targeted beneficiaries.

Coram: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan.
Between: Banwari and Others vs Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC)
Date of Judgment: 10-12-2024