The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has held that compensation redetermined under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be restricted only to the amount awarded in the foundational award. The Court also clarified that claimants may seek compensation for wells, trees, structures, or pipelines if they produce supporting evidence.
Justice Shailesh P. Brahme delivered the judgment on February 27, 2026, in a batch of appeals including Geetabai Eknath Salunke (since deceased through L.Rs.) v. The Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Vaijapur & Anr., First Appeal No.1328 of 2024 and connected matters.
Background of the Land Acquisition Dispute
The appeals arose from land acquisition proceedings initiated through a Section 4 notification issued on December 3, 1986. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on November 22, 1990, fixing compensation at ₹370 per R.
The award did not grant compensation for wells, structures, or fruit-bearing trees on the acquired land. The landowners also did not initially seek a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act challenging the award.
Later, in a separate reference (L.A.R. No.10 of 2013) arising from the same notification, the Reference Court enhanced compensation to:
- ₹1,500 per R for dry land
- ₹2,250 per R for seasonal irrigated land
The Court passed that judgment on June 25, 2015. This judgment later became the “foundational award.”
Claim for Redetermination Under Section 28-A
Relying on the foundational award, the present appellants approached the Collector under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act seeking redetermination of compensation. They also claimed compensation for wells, structures, and trees located on their lands.
The Collector partly accepted their request and granted compensation between ₹1,414 and ₹1,715 per R, treating the lands as dry lands. However, the Collector rejected claims for compensation relating to wells, structures, and trees.
Dissatisfied with this determination, the appellants sought a reference under Section 28-A(3).
The Reference Court dismissed their claims. It held that compensation could not exceed the rate fixed in the foundational award.
Arguments Before the High Court
Counsel for the appellants argued that Section 28-A allows full redetermination of compensation. According to them, the provision is not limited to market value alone. It also includes other components listed under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, such as compensation for wells, trees, and structures.
They further argued that the Reference Court wrongly relied on V. Ramkrishna Rao v. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 650. According to the appellants, the Court ignored evidence showing that some lands were irrigated lands.
On the other hand, counsel for the acquiring body argued that Section 28-A only ensures parity with the foundational award. They contended that claimants cannot reopen issues such as land classification or seek additional compensation for structures and trees.
High Court’s Interpretation of Section 28-A
The High Court examined the statutory framework and several Supreme Court precedents, including:
- Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari (1995) 2 SCC 736
- Union of India v. Hansoli Devi (2002) 7 SCC 273
- Union of India v. Shri Ram Mehar (AIR 1973 SC 305)
- Banwari v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.
The Court noted that Section 28-A is a beneficial provision. The legislature introduced it to remove inequality in compensation among landowners whose lands are acquired through the same notification.
The Court emphasized that the words “redetermination” and “compensation” in Section 28-A must receive a broad interpretation. Compensation includes all factors listed in Section 23 of the Act, not merely the market value of the land.
Additional Compensation Cannot Be Denied
Justice Brahme observed that claimants may receive compensation for wells, trees, pipelines, or structures if they produce credible evidence.
The Court also held that denying such compensation merely because the foundational award was silent on those aspects would defeat the purpose of the provision. Such an approach would also conflict with the constitutional protection of property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
Findings on Irrigated Lands
The High Court examined the evidence produced by the appellants, including 7/12 extracts and witness testimony. These materials indicated that several acquired lands were irrigated lands.
Accordingly, the Court held that the appellants in the following appeals were entitled to enhanced compensation:
- First Appeal No. 1328 of 2024
- First Appeal No. 1330 of 2024
- First Appeal No. 1331 of 2024
- First Appeal No. 1368 of 2024
The Court granted them compensation at ₹3,000 per R for irrigated land.
Statutory Benefits Granted
The High Court further directed that the appellants would receive statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, including:
- 30% solatium under Section 23(2)
- 12% additional component under Section 23(1A)
- Interest under Sections 28 and 34
The Court relied on the Full Bench judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457 for determining interest.
Matters Remanded to Reference Court
In several other appeals, the claimants sought compensation for wells, houses, huts, structures, and trees. The High Court found that the Reference Court had not properly examined the evidence on record.
The Court therefore quashed those orders and remanded the matters to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication.
The Reference Court must now determine compensation for those additional components after evaluating the available evidence.
Directions Issued by the Court
The High Court directed the parties to appear before the Reference Court on March 18, 2026.
It also instructed the Reference Court to decide the matters as expeditiously as possible and preferably within ten months.
