Bombay High Court holds Section 28-A empowers widened redetermination; grants higher rates to some landowners, remands other claims for fresh inquiry

A single-judge bench of Justice Shailesh P. Brahme heard a batch of First Appeals arising under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act challenging awards of the Reference Court and the Collector relating to lands acquired under a common notification dated 3.12.1986. The appeals concerned whether claimants could seek compensation exceeding the rates in a previously decided “Foundational Award” and whether redetermination under Section 28-A permitted claims for items other than land such as trees, wells and structures.

The Court allowed part of the appeals and remanded others, finding that Section 28-A was a beneficent provision not strictly confined to the market value fixed in the Foundational Award and that additional components could be awarded where the Foundational Award was silent. The Court held that certain appellants were entitled to enhanced classification and rates and directed fresh adjudication on ancillary claims. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “It is settled law that Section 28-A of the L.A. Act is a beneficial legislation. It is being enacted with intention to provide fair and reasonable compensation to inarticulate poor litigants. The rate fixed in the Foundational Award can be treated to be the basic market value. If the Foundational Award is silent in respect of additional compensation for trees, structure, well and pipeline, it would be causing harm to the legitimate expectation of a particular class of litigant to deprive them from those benefits. It is possible to award additional compensation to such persons adhering to the rate fixed in the Foundational Award. That cannot be said to be largesse. But it is in consonance with spirit of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.” The Court further recorded that “for the reasons stated above, I answer issue no. 1 in favour of the appellants/Claimants.”

Background
The disputes arose from a common Section 4 notification (3.12.1986) and an award dated 22.11.1990 which had offered Rs. 370 per R (acre) and did not award separate compensation for wells, structures or fruit-bearing trees. A later “Foundational Award” in L.A.R. No. 10 of 2013 fixed rates at Rs. 1,500 per R for dry land and Rs. 2,250 per R for seasonal irrigated land; that award became the basis for multiple Section 28-A applications by landowners who had not earlier pursued references under Section 18. The Collector, on redetermination, fixed rates between Rs. 1,414 and Rs. 1,715 per R and denied claims for wells, structures and trees. The Reference Court dismissed the claimants’ appeals holding they were not entitled to compensation beyond the Foundational Award.

Appellants contended that Section 28-A allowed full redetermination akin to Section 18 references and that many of the acquired plots were misclassified as dry land; they also sought compensation for ancillary items. Respondents argued that Section 28-A was limited to parity with the Foundational Award and could not be used to reopen all issues. The Court considered precedents including Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, Union of India v. Hansoli Devi, V. Ramkrushnarao and subsequent authorities, analysed the statutory scheme (notably Sections 23 and 28-A) and held that Section 28-A must be construed beneficently to remove inequality and could support awards beyond the Foundational Award where warranted by the record.

Disposition: The Court classified the appeals into two groups. Group I appeals were allowed partly: appellants in First Appeal Nos. 1328/2024, 1330/2024, 1331/2024 and 1368/2024 were held to be entitled to Rs. 3,000 per R for acquired lands, 30% solatium under Section 23(2), an additional 12% per annum under Section 23(1A) and interest under Sections 28 and 34; awards were to be drawn and records returned. Group II appeals (a list of fifteen First Appeals) were quashed and remanded to the Reference Court for fresh inquiry into claims for wells, houses/huts, structures and trees; parties were directed to appear on 18.03.2026 and the Reference Court was asked to endeavour to decide the references preferably within ten months.

Case Details:
Case No.: First Appeal Nos. 1328, 1329, 1330, 1331, 1332, 1333, 1359, 1361, 1362, 1367, 1368, 1369, 1370, 2590 and 2873 of 2024 (batch)
Case Title: Various appellants (through L.Rs.) v. The Sub Divisional Officer cum Land Acquisition Officer, Vaijapur & Another
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shri Anand P. Bhandari, Advocate a/w Shri Akash Nahar, Rushikesh Lone, Rushikesh Totla; i/by Shri S. S. Karanne; Shri Yogesh D. Kale, Advocate (as appearing in some appeals)
For the Respondent(s): Shri N. D. Raje, A.G.P.; Shri S. N. Morampalle, A.G.P.; Shri S. V. Hange, A.G.P.; Shri Rahul A. Tambe, Advocate; Mrs. Sarita Gaikwad, Advocate; Shri B. V. Virdhe, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 60