The Karnataka High Court has clarified that the exclusion of time taken to obtain a certified copy under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, applies equally to all land losers - whether or not they personally applied for the certified copy. This ruling ensures equitable access to enhanced compensation and reinforces the remedial intent of the provision.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from applications filed by landowners under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking enhanced compensation based on a reference court’s award dated 31.07.2008 in LAC No.174/1996. The Konkan Railway Corporation Limited (KRCL), as the acquiring authority, challenged the Special Land Acquisition Officer’s (SLAO) orders dated 01.07.2022 and 17.12.2022, which granted enhanced compensation at Rs.18,250/- per gunta, arguing that the applications were filed beyond the three-month limitation period under Section 28-A(1).
Key Facts
- The acquisition of land in Shirwad Village, Karwar Taluka, Uttara Kannada District, was notified under Section 4(1)(a) of the LA Act on 09.10.1993 and 08.07.1991, with final notifications issued on 14.07.1992 and 24.02.1995.
- Possession of the land was taken on 29.07.1994.
- The reference court’s award enhancing compensation to Rs.11,500/- per gunta was delivered on 31.07.2008.
- This award was later enhanced to Rs.18,500/- per gunta on appeal, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court on 06.07.2012 in SLP (C) No.18119/2012.
- The market value of Rs.18,250/- per gunta was ultimately adopted as the basis for enhancement under Section 28-A.
- The contesting respondents, Smt. Deepa Dilip Naik and Sri Vithoba Shankar Phayade (deceased), filed applications under Section 28-A on 17.11.2008 and 05.11.2008 respectively.
- These applications were supported by photocopies of the reference court’s award dated 31.07.2008, not certified copies.
- A learned advocate filed an application for a certified copy of the award on 01.08.2008.
- The reference court prepared the certified copy on 30.08.2008 and delivered it on 19.09.2008.
- The SLAO registered the Section 28-A applications on 19.01.2009 and issued notice to KRCL on 29.12.2012.
- KRCL filed writ petitions before the Single Judge of the High Court, which were dismissed on 11.06.2025.
Procedural History
- 09.10.1993 & 08.07.1991: Preliminary notifications issued under Section 4(1)(a) of the LA Act.
- 14.07.1992 & 24.02.1995: Final notifications issued.
- 26.03.1994 & 11.01.1996: SLAO’s initial awards under Section 11.
- 29.07.1994: Possession taken.
- 31.07.2008: Reference Court’s award in LAC No.174/1996 enhancing compensation to Rs.11,500/- per gunta.
- 01.08.2008: Application for certified copy filed by advocate on behalf of landowners.
- 30.08.2008: Certified copy prepared by reference court.
- 19.09.2008: Certified copy delivered.
- 05.11.2008 & 17.11.2008: Section 28-A applications filed by contesting respondents.
- 01.07.2022 & 17.12.2022: SLAO’s enhancement awards issued.
- 11.06.2025: Single Judge of Karnataka High Court dismissed KRCL’s writ petitions (WP Nos.105586/2023 and 105650/2023).
- 27.04.2026: Writ Appeals heard and reserved.
- 29.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Division Bench.
The Parties' Positions
- Appellant (KRCL): Argued that Section 28-A applications were time-barred since filed after 31.10.2008, and that the benefit of excluding copying time under the proviso to Section 28-A(1) applies only to those who applied for the certified copy themselves.
- Respondents (Landowners): Contended that the delay in filing was due to the reference court’s delay in issuing the certified copy, and that the proviso’s benefit must extend to all land losers relying on the award, regardless of who applied for the copy.
Relief Sought
KRCL sought to set aside the SLAO’s enhancement awards dated 01.07.2022 and 17.12.2022, and to declare the Section 28-A applications invalid for being filed beyond the limitation period. The landowners sought confirmation of the enhanced compensation at Rs.18,250/- per gunta, with interest and costs.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the benefit of excluding the time taken by the reference court to issue a certified copy under the proviso to Section 28-A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is available only to those who personally applied for the certified copy (copy applicants), or whether it extends to all land losers who rely on the award, even if they obtained a photocopy without filing for the certified copy themselves (non-copy applicants).
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
KRCL contended that the proviso to Section 28-A(1) is analogous to Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, and must be strictly construed. Relying on Gujarat Housing Board v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, it argued that the exclusion of time is an inalienable right granted only to those who diligently applied for the certified copy within the limitation period. It asserted that extending the benefit to non-applicants would violate the principle that limitation periods must be applied with rigour, and that courts cannot grant equitable relief to extend statutory deadlines.
For the Respondent
The landowners argued that the language of the proviso refers to "a copy" of the award, not "a certified copy," and that the Legislature intended Section 28-A as a beneficial provision to ensure parity in compensation. They emphasized that the delay in filing was not due to their negligence but due to the reference court’s delay in issuing the certified copy. Citing Union of India v. Hansoli Devi and India House v. Kishan N. Lalwani, they contended that the proviso must be liberally interpreted to achieve the legislative purpose, and that denying the benefit to non-applicants would create artificial discrimination.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by acknowledging the strict nature of limitation periods under the LA Act, affirming that Section 28-A(1) imposes a three-month deadline from the date of the reference court’s award, and that applications filed beyond this period cannot be saved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
"It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes."
However, the Court distinguished between the rigid application of the limitation period and the mandatory exclusion provided under the proviso to Section 28-A(1). It held that the proviso, which permits exclusion of the time taken to obtain "a copy" of the award, is not a discretionary benefit but a statutory obligation akin to Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act.
"The underlying purpose of these provisions is to enable a litigant seeking enforcement of his right to any remedy to do so effectively and without the harsh prescription of time-bar not unduly interfering in the exercise of statutory rights and remedies."
The Court rejected KRCL’s argument that the benefit is tied to the person who applied for the certified copy. It noted that the proviso uses the term "a copy," not "a certified copy," and does not condition the exclusion on the identity of the applicant. The Court emphasized that the Legislature’s intent was to ensure that land losers are not penalized for delays attributable to the court system.
It further held that distinguishing between copy applicants and non-applicants would be artificial and discriminatory, especially since both are entitled to rely on the same award under Section 28-A. The Court cited India House v. Kishan N. Lalwani to affirm that the exclusion of time under Section 12(2) is automatic and does not require a separate application - similarly, the exclusion under Section 28-A(1) must be applied without distinction.
The Court concluded that the reference court’s delay - from 01.08.2008 (application for copy) to 19.09.2008 (delivery) - amounted to 49 days. Adding this to the three-month period extended the deadline to 19.12.2008. Since the applications were filed on 05.11.2008 and 17.11.2008, they were well within the extended period.
The Verdict
The writ appeals were dismissed. The Court upheld the SLAO’s enhancement awards dated 01.07.2022 and 17.12.2022, confirming enhanced compensation at Rs.18,250/- per gunta for both landowners. The Court directed KRCL to pay interest at 9% per annum from the date of possession (29.07.1994) until actual payment, and to bear the costs of the proceedings. Compliance with payment and interest obligations is to be completed within 8 weeks from the date of this judgment.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Exclusion of Copying Time Is Automatic and Non-Discretionary
- Practitioners must now argue that the exclusion of time under Section 28-A(1) is mandatory and applies to all applicants, regardless of whether they personally applied for the certified copy.
- The burden is on the acquiring authority to prove that the application was filed beyond the extended period, not on the landowner to prove diligence.
Photocopies Are Sufficient for Section 28-A Applications
- A photocopy of the reference court’s award is legally sufficient to initiate a Section 28-A application.
- The SLAO’s duty is to verify the authenticity of the photocopy, not to demand a certified copy as a precondition.
Limitation Periods Must Be Calculated with Statutory Exclusions
- When calculating the three-month window under Section 28-A(1), courts must add the time taken by the reference court to issue the certified copy, even if the applicant did not apply for it.
- This includes the period from the date of application for the copy to the date of its delivery.
Beneficial Legislation Must Be Liberally Interpreted
- Section 28-A is a remedial provision designed to ensure equitable compensation.
- Courts must avoid interpretations that create arbitrary distinctions between landowners based on procedural technicalities.
No Need to File Separate Applications for Exclusion
- Unlike Section 5 of the Limitation Act, no application for condonation or exclusion is required under Section 28-A(1).
- The exclusion operates automatically upon proof of the court’s delay in issuing the copy.
