Landowners Have Right To Apply U/S 28A Land Acquisition Act For Redetermination Of Compensation Amount Irrespective Of Prior Reference Application Status: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court held that landowners have the right to apply under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for redetermination of compensation on the basis of the enhanced compensation awarded irrespective of reference application status.
The petitioners, who were agriculturists, had filed a petition under Section 18(2) of the Act to determine the market value of a piece of land that was going to be acquired for the purpose of Ramthal (Marol) Lift Irrigation Canal. However, the application was not referred to the Reference Court as stated under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act.
During the pendency of this application, the Reference Court had enhanced the market value of the said land by treating it as irrigated land. Consequently, the petitioners filed an application under Section 28A of the Act for redetermination of the compensation on the basis of the enhanced compensation awarded.
A Single Bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed, “Irrespective of the fact, whether the landlord has filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act, is entitled for making an application under Section 28A of the Act, or if the application for reference is dismissed on the ground of delay, even nonetheless, he is entitled to make an application to claim the benefit under Section 28A of the Act.”
Advocate Manjunath A. Karigannavar represented the petitioners, while AGA Hanamantharaya Lagali appeared for the respondents.
Section 28A of the Act deals with the redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of an award of a Court, and it states that where an award is passed under the Act, a Court can allow an applicant compensation in excess of the amount awarded.
The application was rejected by the Reference Court stating that the provisions of Section 28A of the Act were not applicable since the petitioners had not filed miscellaneous application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act.
The petitioners argued that filing a reference application was not a condition precedent for claiming benefits under Section 28A of the Act.
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bir Wati & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. AIR 2017 SC 4069 where it was held that when an application of a landowner under Section 18 of the Act was dismissed on the ground of delay, then the said landowner was entitled to make an application under Section 28A of the Act.
Consequently, the Court held that “whether the landlord has filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act, is entitled for making an application under Section 28A of the Act, or if the application for reference is dismissed on the ground of delay, even nonetheless, he is entitled to make an application to claim the benefit under Section 28A of the Act.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Smt. Suvarna & Ors. v. The State Of Karnataka & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC-D:2653)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Manjunath A. Karigannavar
Respondents: AGA Hanamantharaya Lagali
