Facts of the Case:
The appellants owned land in Village Majri, Jhajjar District, acquired for the Kundli-Manesar-Palwal Expressway under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Compensation was initially fixed at ₹12,50,000 per acre. Similarly circumstanced landowners received enhanced compensation of ₹19,91,300 per acre through a High Court judgment in 2016. The appellants, not having filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act, filed an application under Section 28-A seeking similar compensation, which was allowed by the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) in 2020. The High Court quashed this order based on a narrow interpretation of Section 28-A. The appellants challenged the High Court’s decision in the Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The appellants argued that the High Court erred in relying on the Ramsingbhai judgment, which did not consider the earlier binding judgment in Pradeep Kumari. They contended that Section 28-A is a beneficent provision aimed at ensuring equity in compensation for poor and inarticulate landowners.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondents argued that the application under Section 28-A was barred by limitation as it relied on the High Court’s appellate judgment rather than the Reference Court’s award. They maintained that the High Court’s interpretation, based on Ramsingbhai, was legally correct.
Issues of the Judgment:
- Whether Section 28-A applications are limited to awards made by the Reference Court and not appellate courts.
- Whether the appellants’ claim for redetermination of compensation under Section 28-A was valid and within the limitation period.
Observations/Findings by the Supreme Court:
The Court emphasized the beneficent purpose of Section 28-A, intended to provide equitable compensation to poor landowners who could not utilize Section 18. It upheld the broader interpretation given in Pradeep Kumari, allowing applications based on any Reference Court award made under the same notification. The Court found the appellants’ application timely and valid since it was filed within three months of the High Court’s appellate judgment enhancing compensation.
Principle of the Case:
The judgment underscores the equitable interpretation of beneficent provisions to advance justice for marginalized landowners. Section 28-A must be construed to provide maximum relief and not curtailed by restrictive interpretations.
Final Order:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s order, and upheld the LAC’s decision granting enhanced compensation to the appellants.
Impact on Public Law and Order:
This judgment strengthens the rights of landowners, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds, by ensuring they are not denied equitable compensation due to technical barriers. It sets a precedent for interpreting social welfare legislation to achieve justice, thereby enhancing public confidence in the legal system.
Case Citation:
Supreme Court of India, Banwari and Others v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 13348 of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 12221 of 2022), Decided on December 10, 2024.
