The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified a critical procedural principle under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, holding that the limitation period for invoking Section 28-A begins only upon the final judicial determination of market value, not the initial award. This ruling ensures that landowners are not penalized for delays caused by pending litigation that ultimately results in higher compensation for identically situated landowners.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, landowners in village Kot Tikka Majra, Tehsil Dhar Kalan, District Gurdaspur, had their land acquired for the Shahpurkandi Dam Project under notifications issued on 16.06.1994 and 28.10.1994 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) passed an Award under Section 11 on 04.12.1996, fixing compensation at a rate lower than market value. Other landowners in the same acquisition proceedings challenged this Award under Section 18, leading to a Reference Court Award dated 11.12.2007, which enhanced the market value to Rs.1,600 per marla.
Key Facts
- The petitioners filed an application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act on 22.12.2008, seeking enhanced compensation based on the Reference Court Award of 11.12.2007
- The application was kept pending by the LAC without disposal
- On 16.03.2017, the High Court in Durgi Devi and others v. State of Punjab (RFA No.1233 of 2017) enhanced the market value for the same land to Rs.1,754 per marla
- The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal against this decision on 20.09.2017
- On 29.12.2017, the petitioners applied to the LAC for revised compensation based on the 2017 High Court determination
- The LAC rejected the application on 24.08.2021, holding it was barred by limitation under Section 28-A
Procedural History
- 16.06.1994: Notification under Section 4 issued for acquisition
- 28.10.1994: Notification under Section 6 issued
- 04.12.1996: LAC’s initial Award passed
- 11.12.2007: Reference Court Award under Section 18 fixed compensation at Rs.1,600 per marla
- 22.12.2008: Petitioners filed application under Section 28-A
- 16.03.2017: High Court judgment in Durgi Devi enhanced market value to Rs.1,754 per marla
- 20.09.2017: Supreme Court dismissed State’s appeal against Durgi Devi judgment
- 29.12.2017: Petitioners applied for revised compensation based on 2017 judgment
- 24.08.2021: LAC dismissed Section 28-A application on grounds of limitation
- 2026: Writ Petition (CWP-8487-2026) filed before Punjab & Haryana High Court
- 19.03.2026: High Court delivered judgment
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought setting aside of the LAC’s order dated 24.08.2021, and directed payment of compensation at Rs.1,754 per marla, along with all statutory benefits and interest under the 1894 Act, as amended.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the limitation period under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 begins to run from the date of the initial Reference Court Award or from the date of the final judicial determination of market value by a higher court.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the application under Section 28-A was pending adjudication when the High Court’s judgment in Durgi Devi (16.03.2017) conclusively determined the market value at Rs.1,754 per marla. Relying on Banwari and others v. HSIIDC (2025(1) RCR (Civil) 232), counsel contended that limitation under Section 28-A commences only from the date of the final judicial award that forms the basis of the claim for enhanced compensation. The petitioners had not delayed unreasonably; the delay was due to the pendency of litigation that ultimately established their entitlement.
For the Respondent
The State, through the DAG, contended that the Section 28-A application filed on 22.12.2008 was filed beyond the 90-day limitation period from the Reference Court Award dated 11.12.2007. The State argued that the subsequent High Court judgment could not revive a time-barred application, and that the petitioners were required to file a fresh application after the 2017 judgment, which they failed to do.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory scheme of Section 28-A, which permits landowners to claim enhanced compensation if other landowners in the same acquisition proceedings receive higher compensation through judicial determination. The Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 28-A is to ensure equitable treatment among similarly situated landowners, and that a hyper-technical application of limitation would defeat this objective.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Banwari and others v. HSIIDC, particularly paragraphs 15 and 16, which held that limitation under Section 28-A begins to run only from the date of the judicial award that forms the basis of the claim for enhanced compensation, not from the initial LAC Award. The Court noted:
"The appellants are seeking redetermination of the compensation on the basis of the judgment and order of the High Court in First Appeal No. 429 of 2023 dated 2nd May 2016. It is not disputed that the application of the appellants under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act is within a period of three months from 2nd May 2016."
The Court further observed that the petitioners’ application under Section 28-A was already pending before the LAC when the High Court’s judgment in Durgi Devi was delivered on 16.03.2017. The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the State’s appeal on 20.09.2017 rendered that judgment final. Therefore, the petitioners were entitled to have their pending application adjudicated on the basis of the final market value of Rs.1,754 per marla, without being forced to file a fresh application.
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the petitioners were required to file a new application, noting that such a requirement would impose an unreasonable burden and defeat the legislative intent behind Section 28-A. The Court held that the LAC’s refusal to consider the enhanced value was legally unsustainable and amounted to a denial of just compensation.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The High Court set aside the LAC’s order dated 24.08.2021. The petitioners are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.1,754 per marla, along with all statutory benefits and interest as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended). The State must release the due amount within two months from the date of judgment. If payment is delayed beyond this period, the LAC shall personally pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000 to the petitioners, to be borne from his own pocket and not charged to the State exchequer.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Limitation Starts from Final Judicial Award, Not Initial Determination
- Practitioners must now argue that the 90-day limitation under Section 28-A begins only when a higher court finally determines market value, not from the initial LAC or Reference Court Award
- Applications filed within 90 days of a final appellate judgment are valid, even if the original application was filed earlier and remained pending
- Delay caused by ongoing litigation does not constitute laches if the final judgment establishes a higher compensation benchmark
Pending Applications Must Be Reconsidered in Light of Subsequent Judgments
- If a Section 28-A application is pending and a higher court later enhances compensation for identical land in the same acquisition, the LAC is obligated to revise the award based on the final judgment
- Landowners need not file a fresh application; the pending application can be adjudicated on the basis of the new judicial determination
- This principle applies even if the initial application was technically time-barred under the original award
Judicial Equity Overrides Technical Limitation
-
Courts will prioritize substantive justice over procedural technicalities in land acquisition matters
-
The doctrine of just, fair, and equal compensation under Article 300-A of the Constitution overrides rigid limitation periods
-
LACs and tribunals must adopt a pragmatic, not hyper-technical, approach when adjudicating Section 28-A claims
-
Practitioners should immediately review all pending Section 28-A applications where subsequent judgments have enhanced compensation
-
File applications for reconsideration if the LAC has rejected claims on the basis of an outdated award
-
Cite Banwari v. HSIIDC and this judgment to argue that limitation is triggered by final judicial determination, not administrative awards
