REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7655 OF 2004

 V. Ramakrishna Rao ...Appellant

Versus

The Singareni Collieries Company …Respondents Ltd. and another  

J U D G M E N T

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. The only question which arises for consideration in this appeal filed  

against the judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court is  

whether the application filed by the appellant under Section 28A(3) of the  

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) for making a reference to  

the  Court  was  maintainable  and  the  High  Court  committed  an  error  by  

quashing the proceedings of O.P. No.31 of 2000 pending in the Court of  

Senior  Civil  Judge,  Peddapalli  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘the  Reference  

Court’).

2. The land of the appellant (20 acres 11 guntas) was acquired by the  

State Government in 1985 as a part of acquisition of large tract of land for  

mining  operations  to  be  undertaken  by  respondent  No.1  –  Singareni  

Collieries  Company  Pvt.  Ltd.  By  an  award  dated  3.8.1987,  the  Land  

Acquisition Officer fixed market value of the acquired land at Rs.7,000/- per  

acre for dry land under cultivation (category I) and Rs.6,000/- per acre for  

dry land which was kept fallow (category II).

3. On a reference made to it under Section 18 of the Act, the Reference  

Court, after considering the evidence produced by the parties fixed market  

value of category I land at Rs.10,000/- per acre and of category II land at  

Rs.9,500/- per acre.  This did not satisfy the land owners, who filed Appeal  

Suit No.978 of 1990 in the High Court, which was allowed and the matter  

was remanded to the Reference Court for re-determination of the amount of  

compensation payable to the land owners. The Reference Court reconsidered  

the matter and passed order dated 17.7.2000, whereby it fixed market value  

of  the  two  categories  of  land  at  Rs.30,000/-  and  Rs.15,000/-  per  acre  

respectively.  The appeals filed by the parties against the fresh determination  

of market value by the Reference Court are pending before the High Court.

2

4. The appellant  who had not invoked Section 18 of the Act filed an  

application under Section 28A(1) for payment of enhanced compensation at  

par with other land owners, at whose instance reference was made by the  

Collector.  By an order dated 31.12.1990, the Land Acquisition Officer held  

that the appellant is entitled to receive compensation at par with other land  

owners.  On the same day, the appellant filed an application under Section  

28A(3) of the Act for making a reference to the Court for fixing the fair  

market  value of the acquired land by asserting that he was accepting the  

amount  of  compensation  under  protest.   The  Land  Acquisition  Officer  

referred the matter to Collector, Karimnagar, who accorded permission for  

making a reference to the Court.  Thereupon, the Land Acquisition Officer  

sent communication dated 2.6.2000 to the Reference Court for fixing the fair  

market value of the appellant’s land.   

5. Respondent  No.1  challenged  the  aforesaid  communication  in  Writ  

Petition No.23600/2000, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge  

with an observation that the Civil Court is already seized with the matter in  

O.P. No. 31/2000 and the petitioner can agitate all the points including the  

one relating to maintainability of reference made under Section 28A(3).  The  

Division Bench allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.1, set aside  

the order of the learned Single Judge and held that a person who gets benefit  

3

of  higher  compensation  under  Section  28A(1)  cannot  file  an  application  

under Section 28A(3).   

6. Shri P.S. Narsimha, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant  

argued that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside because the view  

expressed by the Division Bench on the maintainability of the application  

filed  by  the  appellant  under  Section  28A(3)  is  ex  facie  erroneous  and  

contrary to the ratio of the judgments of this Court in  Union of India v.  

Pradeep  Kumari  (1995)  2  SCC 736,  Union  of  India  v.  Hansoli  Devi  

(2002) 7 SCC 273, Union of India v. Munshi Ram (Dead) by Lrs. (2006)  

4  SCC 538  and  Kendriya  Karamchari  Sehkari  Grah  Nirman  Samiti  

Limited, Noida v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) 1 SCC 754.

7. Shri  Altaf  Ahmad,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  

respondents  supported  the  impugned  judgment  and  argued  that  Section  

28A(3) can be invoked only if  the amount paid to the land owner under  

Section 28A(1)  is  less  than the amount awarded by the Reference Court  

under  Section 18 of  the  Act  and not  otherwise.   Learned senior  counsel  

pointed out that determination of market value made by the Reference Court  

vide order dated 17.7.2000 is under challenge before the High Court and,  

therefore, the appellant is not entitled to get higher compensation.  Learned  

senior  counsel  emphasized  that  once  the  amount  of  compensation  is  re-

4

determined under Section 28A(1), the defaulting land owner cannot apply  

for fixation of the fair market value of the land by filing application under  

Section 28A(3) and the Division Bench of the High Court did not commit  

any error by quashing the proceedings pending before the civil court.

8. We have considered the respective submissions.   Section 28A of the  

Act reads as under:

“28A.  Re-determination of the amount of compensation on  the basis of the award of the Court.–– (1) Where in an award  under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of  compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector  under Section 11, the persons interested in all  the other land  covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section  (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector  may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to  the Collector  under Section 18,  by written application to the  Collector within three months from the date of the award of the  Court require that the amount of compensation payable to him  may  be  re-determined  on  the  basis  of  the  amount  of  compensation awarded by the Court:

Provided that in computing the period of three months within  which an application to the Collector shall be made under this  sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and  the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall  be  excluded.

(2) The Collector  shall,  on receipt  of  an application under  sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the  persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of  being  heard,  and make  an award determining  the  amount  of  compensation payable to the applicants.

(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub- section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require  that  the  matter  be  referred  by  the  Collector  for  the  

5

determination of the Court and the provisions of Sections 18 to  28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply  to a reference under Section 18.”

9. The  above  reproduced  provision  represents  the  Legislature’s  

determination to ensure that the goal of equality enshrined in the Preamble  

of  the  Constitution  and  Articles  38,  39  and 46 thereof  is  translated  into  

reality, at least in the matter of payment of compensation to those who are  

deprived  of  their  land  for  the  benefit  of  the  State,  its  

instrumentalities/agencies  and  even  private  persons.  Section  28A  also  

represents  statutory  embodiment  of  the  doctrine  of  equality  in  matters  

relating to the acquisition of land. The Act which was enacted in 1894 and  

was amended after 90 years has the potential of depriving a large segment of  

the  society  i.e.  the  ‘agriculturist’  of  their  only  source  of  livelihood.  The  

scheme of Section 28A provide some solace to this segment of the society  

by ensuring that such of the land owners whose land was acquired under the  

same notification but who could not, on account of poverty, ignorance and  

other disabilities join others in seeking reference under Section 18 get an  

opportunity to claim compensation at par with others.  This section is aimed  

at removing inequality in the payment of compensation in lieu of acquisition  

of land under the same notification.    To put it differently, this section gives  

a chance to the land owner, who may not have applied under Section 18 for  

determination of market value by the Court to seek re-determination of the  

6

amount of compensation, if any other similarly situated land owner succeeds  

in persuading the Reference Court to fix higher market value of the acquired  

land.    Therefore,  Section 28A has to be interpreted in a manner which  

would advance the policy of legislation to give an opportunity to the land  

owner who may have, due to variety of reasons not been able to move the  

Collector for making reference under Section 18 of the Act to get higher  

compensation  if  market  value  is  revised  by  the  Reference  Court  at  the  

instance  of  other  land  owners,  whose  land  is  acquired  under  the  same  

notification.   Of course, this opportunity can be availed by filing application  

within  the  prescribed  period.   In  Union  of  India  v.  Pradeep  Kumari  

(supra), a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that Section 28A is in the  

nature of a beneficent provision intended to remove inequality and to give  

relief  to the inarticulate  and poor  land owners,  who are  not  able to take  

advantage of the right of reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the  

Act and such a provision should be interpreted in a manner which advances  

the policy of legislation.   

10. In  Union  of  India  v.  Munshi  Ram (supra),  a  two-Judge  Bench  

considered the meaning of the word `re-determination’ appearing in Section  

28A and held that compensation payable to the applicant under Section 28A  

should be at par  with what is finally payable to those who sought reference  

under Section 18 of the Act and if the compensation payable to the latter  

7

category  is  reduced  by  the  superior  court,  the  one  who  gets  higher  

compensation  under  Section  28A  may  be  directed  to  refund  the  excess  

amount.   What  was  emphasized  by  the  two-Judge  Bench  was  that  re-

determination of the amount of compensation under Section 28A must be  

commensurate  with  the  compensation  payable  to  those  who  had  sought  

reference under Section 18 and if the higher court reduces the amount of  

compensation payable in terms of the order of the Reference Court,  then  

those making application under Section 28A must be asked to refund the  

excess  amount.   A  somewhat  similar  view  was  expressed  in  Kendriya  

Karamchari  Sehkari  Grah  Nirman  Samiti  Limited  v.  State  of  Uttar  

Pradesh (supra) in the following words:

“It is true that once the Reference Court decides the matter and  enhances the compensation, a person who is otherwise eligible  to similar relief and who has not sought reference, may apply  under Section 28-A of the Act. If the conditions for application  of  the  said  provision  have  been  complied  with,  such  person  would be entitled to the same relief which has been granted to  other  persons  seeking  reference  and  getting  enhanced  compensation. But, it is equally true that if the Reference Court  decides the matter and the State or acquiring body challenges  such  enhanced  amount  of  compensation  and  the  matter  is  pending either before the High Court or before this Court (the  Supreme Court),  the Collector would be within his power or  authority to keep the application under Section 28-A of the Act  pending till the matter is finally decided by the High Court or  the Supreme Court as the case may be. The reason being that  the  decision  rendered  by  the  Reference  Court  enhancing  compensation  has  not  attained  “finality”  and  is  sub  judice  before a superior court.”

8

11. If sub-section (3) of Section 28A is interpreted keeping in view the  

object  sought  to  be  achieved  by  enacting  the  provision  for  removing  

inequality in the matter of payment of compensation, it must be held that  a  

person who is not satisfied with an award made under Section 28A(2) can  

make an application to the Collector  under Section 28A(3) for making a  

reference to the Court as defined in Section 3(d) of the Act and this right  

cannot be frustrated merely because as a result  of re-determination made  

under  Section  28A(2)  read  with  Section  28A(1)  the  applicant  becomes  

entitled to receive compensation at par with other land owners.  There is  

nothing  in  the  plain  language  of  Section  28A(3)  from  which  it  can  be  

inferred that a person who has not accepted the award made under Section  

28A(2) is precluded from making an application to the Collector with the  

request  to  refer  the  matter  to  the  Court.   Of course,  the  Court  to  which  

reference is made under Section 28A(3) will  have to bear in mind that a  

person  who  has  not  sought  reference  under  Section  18  cannot  get  

compensation higher than the one payable to those who had sought reference  

under that section.

12. Reverting to the facts of this case, we find that on the date of making  

an award by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 28A, Appeal Suit  

No.978/1990 filed by other land owners against the order of the Reference  

Court was pending before the High Court.  The same was finally disposed of  

9

on 10.3.2000 and the matter was remanded to the Reference Court for fresh  

determination of market value of the acquired land.  After reconsidering the  

matter, the Reference Court passed order dated 17.7.2000 and fixed market  

value  of  the  acquired  land,  which  was  substantially  higher  than  the  one  

determined  by  earlier  order  dated  30.10.1989.   Therefore,  the  appellant  

cannot be denied right to seek determination of fair market value which has  

to be at least at par with market value fixed by the Reference Court vide  

order  dated  17.7.2000.   The  mere  fact  that  the  application  filed  by  the  

appellant under Section 28A(3) remained pending for more than 9 years and  

it was only on 10.5.2000 that the Collector accorded permission for making  

reference to the Court, cannot be made a ground to deprive the appellant of  

his  legitimate  right  to  seek  further  enhancement  in  the  amount  of  

compensation.  If the High Court enhances the compensation payable to the  

other  land  owners,  the  appellant  will  also  become  entitled  to  higher  

compensation.  If the High Court dismisses both the appeals, then too the  

appellant will be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre  

for the land falling in category I and Rs.15,000/- per acre for the land falling  

in category II.  If, on the other hand, the amount of compensation payable in  

terms of order dated 17.7.2000 passed by the Reference Court is reduced by  

the  High  Court  then  the  amount  payable  to  the  appellant  will  have  to  

adjusted accordingly.   

10

13. In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The impugned judgment of the  

Division Bench is set aside and it is held that the application filed by the  

appellant under Section 28A(3) is maintainable.  However, the Court before  

which O.P. No.31 of 2000 is pending shall pass appropriate order only after  

and in terms of judgment of Appeal Suit Nos.688 and 1643 of 2001 by the  

High Court.   The parties are left to bear their own costs.

………………………….…J. [G.S. Singhvi]

………………………… …..J.

[Asok Kumar Ganguly]

New Delhi October 5, 2010.

11