Equal Compensation Is Not a Privilege, It Is a Constitutional Right: Allahabad High Court Upholds Redetermination Under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act

“A Judicially Determined Fair Compensation Cannot Be Denied To Similarly Situated Landowners Merely On Technical Grounds” – In a landmark ruling Allahabad High Court emphatically upheld the right of landowners, who did not file references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to seek redetermination of compensation under Section 28-A on the basis of later enhanced awards granted to other similarly situated landholders under the same acquisition notification.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai declared that “beneficial legislation cannot be interpreted restrictively to defeat its object” and affirmed the validity of the Special Land Acquisition Officer’s (SLAO) order dated 17.02.2022, which granted enhanced compensation of ₹108/- per square metre with full statutory benefits to the petitioners.

The Court’s judgment stands as a powerful reiteration of constitutional principles of equality, distributive justice, and the liberal interpretation of beneficial statutes designed to protect vulnerable and inarticulate landowners.

“Section 28-A Exists to Undo Inequality, Not Reinforce It” – Court Rejects KUMS' Technical Objections on Limitation

The Court was faced with a challenge from Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (KUMS), which argued that the landowners’ applications under Section 28-A were barred by limitation. It claimed that since an award enhancing compensation had been passed as early as 1990, the landowners could not rely on the 2016 award. The High Court rejected this contention outright and held:

“The limitation under Section 28-A commences from the date of the award on the basis of which redetermination is sought, and not from any earlier award which has been subsequently set aside.”

Relying on the binding precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in Banwari v. HSIIDC, AIR 2025 SC 165, the High Court emphasized that the 2016 award, being the operative and final award, formed the valid foundation for redetermination. The applications filed on 26.04.2016 were thus well within the three-month limitation period.

In doing so, the Court reaffirmed the position adopted by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, (1995) 2 SCC 736, that:

“It is not permissible by judicial interpretation to read words which are not there and thereby restrict the scope of a beneficent provision.”

“Accepting Compensation Without Protest Does Not Extinguish Rights Under Section 28-A” – High Court Applies Hansoli Devi

In rejecting the KUMS’ argument that the landowners had accepted earlier compensation without protest and hence could not claim enhancement, the Court drew strength from the ruling in Union of India v. Hansoli Devi, (2002) 7 SCC 273. It observed:

“A person who accepted the award of the Collector without protest is still entitled to claim redetermination under Section 28-A. To deny that right would be to defeat the very object of the provision.”

The Court found that the landowners never filed a Section 18 reference, making them eligible under Section 28-A, which specifically benefits those who were unable to seek legal redress earlier, often due to poverty, illiteracy, or lack of access.

“Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition Is Not a Generosity – It Is a Legal Entitlement” – Financial Burden No Ground to Deny Rights

The KUMS contended that awarding enhanced compensation decades later would impose an unjust financial burden on public authorities. The Court dismissed this plea as untenable in law, holding that:

“Compensation for land acquisition is not a gratuitous payment but a constitutional obligation under Article 31. Financial hardship of the acquiring body cannot override the statutory and constitutional rights of the landowners.”

The Bench highlighted that public acquisition is never a voluntary transaction. The affected landowners are compelled to surrender their land, and therefore, “they must receive just and fair compensation as a matter of right, not as a matter of charity.”

“When Justice Is Delayed by the State’s Own Litigation, Landowners Cannot Be Penalized for Delay” – Doctrine of Equitable Relief Invoked

Addressing KUMS' claim that the landowners had slept over their rights for nearly 27 years, the Court noted that the Reference Court’s 1990 award had been quashed at the instance of KUMS itself, leading to remand, rehearing, and fresh awards only in 2016. In this context, the Court observed:

“The delay, if any, was caused by the prolonged litigation initiated by the KUMS itself. Landowners cannot be faulted for not acting on an award that was judicially annulled.”

It concluded that the cause of action arose only upon the 2016 award, and the landowners acted promptly thereafter. Hence, the "stale claim" argument was both factually and legally flawed.

“The Spirit of Section 28-A Is Rooted in Constitutional Equality” – All Landowners Under the Same Notification Must Receive Equal Treatment

The Court found that all landowners were covered under the same acquisition notification dated 30.04.1977, and thus, any attempt to treat some differently was a direct violation of Article 14. Quoting the Supreme Court in Narendra and Others v. State of U.P., (2017) 9 SCC 426, the Bench held:

“Once such a fair compensation is determined judicially, all landowners whose land was taken away by the same notification should become the beneficiaries thereof. Not only is it an aspect of good governance, failing to do so would amount to discrimination.”

The High Court ruled that the principle of equal treatment demands that similarly situated persons receive similar compensation for similarly acquired land. Any other approach would undermine the very purpose of enacting Section 28-A.

“Technical Objections Cannot Be Allowed to Defeat the Rights of the Poor and Inarticulate” – Court Orders Immediate Compliance

The judgment stressed that Section 28-A was enacted “to protect the rights of the inarticulate, illiterate, and poor landowners who are otherwise unable to approach the court for enhancement.” It held that the SLAO’s order of 17.02.2022, which granted redetermination at ₹108/- per sq. metre along with statutory benefits, was legally correct and deserved full compliance.

The Court concluded:

“The compensation awarded is not a largesse but a legal entitlement that has been long overdue. The authorities must implement this order in letter and spirit, ensuring that landowners receive their due compensation without further delay or harassment.”

The Court allowed the leading writ petition (Writ-C No. 35876 of 2022) and dismissed the connected petitions filed by KUMS. It directed the KUMS to deposit the enhanced compensation within six weeks, failing which interest at 12% per annum would accrue from the date of default until actual payment.

In doing so, the High Court has not only provided relief to the petitioners but also clarified the scope and purpose of Section 28-A, reinforcing the message that justice delayed must still be justice delivered – especially where the delay results from the State’s own conduct.

Date of Decision: 23rd September 2025