The Madras High Court has affirmed that landowners whose property was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have a right to seek equal compensation when others in identical circumstances receive higher awards. This ruling reinforces the principle of equitable treatment under Section 28A and provides a clear pathway for claimants to challenge disparities in compensation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, heirs of landowners in Karasur Revenue Village, had their agricultural land measuring 0.26.50 ares acquired under Award No.2/2008 for a sum of Rs.21,261 per are. Subsequently, in LAOP No.110 of 2012, the II Additional District Judge awarded enhanced compensation to similarly situated landowners at a higher rate. Upon learning of this disparity, the petitioners invoked Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to seek parity in compensation.
Procedural History
- 2008: Initial land acquisition and compensation award issued
- 2018: Enhanced compensation awarded to other landowners in LAOP No.110 of 2012
- 2019, 2025: Petitioners filed three representations seeking revision of their compensation under Section 28A
- 2026: Writ petition filed under Article 226 after no action was taken on representations
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the District Collector to reconsider their compensation claim in light of the higher awards granted to comparable landowners, and to adjust their award to match the enhanced rate.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 permits a landowner to seek revision of compensation upon discovering that other similarly situated landowners in the same acquisition process received higher awards, even if the original award was not challenged within the statutory period.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on State of Haryana v. Sardar Singh and Union of India v. Rameshwar Prasad to argue that Section 28A is a remedial provision designed to ensure fairness and eliminate arbitrariness in compensation. They contended that the failure to act on their representations amounted to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, as similarly placed persons received differential treatment without reasonable classification.
For the Respondent
The Additional Government Pleader conceded that the petitioners’ application under Section 28A had not been adjudicated and acknowledged the legal obligation to consider it. He submitted that the authorities would process the application in accordance with law, without contesting the substantive merit of the claim.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the purpose and scope of Section 28A, noting that it was inserted to correct anomalies arising from inconsistent compensation awards in the same acquisition process. The provision is not confined to procedural defects but extends to substantive inequities.
"The object of Section 28A is to ensure that no person is deprived of the benefit of enhanced compensation awarded to others in the same acquisition proceedings, merely because he did not file an appeal or revision."
The Court held that the petitioners’ representations, though delayed, were not barred by limitation under Section 28A, as the provision operates independently of the time limits applicable to appeals under Section 18. The failure to act on the representations constituted a denial of statutory remedy and a breach of the duty to act fairly.
The Court emphasized that Section 28A is a substantive right, not a mere procedural formality. The State cannot evade its obligation by citing administrative delay or procedural technicalities when the disparity in compensation is evident and unchallenged.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 entitles landowners to seek parity in compensation when others in the same acquisition process receive higher awards. The third respondent was directed to decide the petitioners’ application within three months.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Parity Is a Statutory Right, Not a Discretionary Benefit
- Practitioners must now treat applications under Section 28A as enforceable rights, not requests for mercy
- Delay in filing does not automatically disentitle a claimant if the disparity arises from a later award in the same acquisition
- Authorities must proactively identify and rectify compensation disparities, even without formal applications
Administrative Inaction Is Not a Defense
- Failure to decide applications under Section 28A within a reasonable time constitutes a violation of statutory duty
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is available to compel action where statutory remedies are stalled
- Courts will not permit the State to use bureaucratic inertia to deny equitable compensation
Enhanced Awards Trigger Automatic Review Obligations
- Once an enhanced award is passed for any landowner in a given acquisition, the Collector must assess whether others are similarly situated
- The burden shifts to the State to justify why differential treatment is justified
- Practitioners should routinely cross-check compensation awards in pending or concluded acquisitions to identify potential Section 28A claims
