Landowner’s Right to Compensation Must Be Judged From Date of Knowledge, Not Mechanical Limitation: Allahabad High Court Allows 31-Year-Old Appeal Under Land Acquisition Act

“Knowledge of the award, not just its existence, is the real trigger for limitation under Section 18. A poor illiterate farmer cannot be deprived of just compensation on the technical plea of delay”— In a powerful reaffirmation of landowners' rights under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Allahabad High Court allowed an appeal filed over three decades ago, holding that the reference for enhanced compensation was not time-barred and that the compensation awarded was “arbitrary and whimsical.”

Justice Sandeep Jain reversed the 1993 judgment of the Third Additional District Judge, Aligarh, which had rejected the landowner’s claim on grounds of limitation and adequacy of compensation. The High Court directed that compensation be recalculated based on the highest exemplar, granting Rs. 8,784.77 per acre along with 30% solatium, 12% additional compensation, and 15% interest under the amended Act.

“The Date of Award Means the Date of Knowledge, Not Mechanical Signature”: Court Applies Supreme Court’s Doctrine

The Court stressed that the limitation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not to be counted mechanically from the date the Collector signs the award but from when the landowner actually or constructively becomes aware of it.

Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 545 and Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. LAO (AIR 1961 SC 1500), the Court held:

“The expression ‘the date of the award’ must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively... The knowledge of the party affected, either actual or constructive, is an essential requirement of fair play and natural justice.”

In the present case, the landowner Sukh Ram Singh, an illiterate farmer, deposed that he only learned of the award in February 1989 from his neighbor, whose land was also acquired. There was no documentary evidence or witness on behalf of the State to disprove this. Consequently, the Court ruled that the reference application filed on 3 March 1989 was within the six-month limitation from the date of knowledge.

“The Most Disadvantageous Land Got the Highest Price — That Exemplar Must Prevail”

The Court strongly condemned the Collector's reliance on the lowest-value exemplar dated 20.07.1979, awarding compensation at just ₹479.15 per acre, despite available sale deeds showing higher values for lands in the same village.

Justice Sandeep Jain quoted from the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab (2012) 5 SCC 432:

“When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality has fetched in a bona fide transaction... The transaction representing the highest value should be preferred unless strong circumstances justify otherwise.”

The High Court found that Exemplar-5 dated 29.09.1977, involving a sale of 0.683 acre for Rs. 6,000, fetched a rate of ₹8,784.77 per acre—nearly 18 times higher than what was awarded. The Court held:

“Even if this sale was two years prior to the notification under Section 4(1), it cannot be discarded when it represents the true market value and involves similar land… The Collector’s reliance on a lesser value was arbitrary and perverse.”

“Collector’s Method Was Arbitrary, Whimsical, and Unsupported by Reason or Law”

The High Court also noted the complete absence of any logical basis for how the Collector computed the rate of ₹479.15 per acre. A supplementary affidavit filed during the appeal seeking to explain the soil classification and circle rates was found “confusing and inconsistent.”

“This clearly demonstrates the arbitrary and whimsical manner in which the compensation has been determined by the Collector,” the Court remarked.

The Court found that both the reference court and the Collector failed to consider the quality of soil, irrigability, and market trends, as required under settled principles of land acquisition law.

“Once Reference Was Valid, Full Benefits Under Amending Act of 1984 Apply”

The Court finally ruled that although the original award was made in 1980, the reference court’s final dismissal came in 1993, much after the enforcement of Amending Act No. 68 of 1984. Thus, the landowner was entitled to the enhanced statutory benefits.

“The appellant is entitled to solatium at 30%, additional compensation at 12% per annum, and interest at 15% under Section 28 of the Act for the enhanced compensation.”

Justice Sandeep Jain concluded: “It is evident that the Collector committed illegality in awarding less amount of compensation to the appellant and the reference court further aggravated that illegality… The appellant is entitled to get compensation for his acquired land at the rate of ₹8,784.77 per acre.”

The Court allowed the appeal in full, directed recalculation of compensation, and ordered preparation of decree accordingly.

Date of Decision: August 25, 2025