Summary
The Supreme Court restored a Land Acquisition Collector's order redetermining compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the basis of a High Court judgment in first appeal enhancing compensation for land under the same notification, holding that the case was covered by the three-Judge decision in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, which the later three-Judge decision in Ramsingbhai Jerambhai had not noticed.
Issues
- Whether landowners who did not seek a reference under Section 18 can apply under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act within three months of a High Court judgment in first appeal enhancing compensation for other land under the same notification.
- Which of two three-Judge Bench decisions, Pradeep Kumari (1995) and Ramsingbhai Jerambhai (2018), governs, where the later decision did not notice the earlier one.
Provisions considered
- Section 28-A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894Following Pradeep Kumari, the Court treated Section 28-A as a beneficent provision to remove inequality in compensation for poor and inarticulate landowners, to be construed to extend rather than curtail the benefit, with limitation of three months running from the award on which redetermination is sought; the appellants' application was within three months of the High Court judgment and met the conditions. (¶¶ 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 24)
- Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The appellants had not sought a reference under this section, which is one of the conditions for invoking Section 28-A; other landowners' reference had been dismissed and their compensation was enhanced in first appeal. (¶¶ 3.2, 3.4, 14, 15)
- Section 54, Land Acquisition Act, 1894Ramsingbhai Jerambhai had held that a judgment of the appellate court under Section 54 is outside Section 28-A; the Court held the appellants' case was governed instead by Pradeep Kumari. (¶¶ 7, 8, 19, 23)
Held
- Section 28-A is a beneficent provision meant to remove inequality in compensation for land covered by the same notification, for the benefit of poor and inarticulate landowners who could not seek a reference, and must be construed to advance rather than curtail the benefit; words not in the provision cannot be read in to restrict it. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 24)
- The right to apply under Section 28-A arises from, and limitation of three months runs from, the award on the basis of which redetermination is sought; the six conditions stated in Pradeep Kumari govern the remedy. (¶¶ 14, 16)
- An earlier decision of a Bench binds later Benches of the same or lesser strength, and a decision that cannot be reconciled with an earlier decision of a co-equal or larger Bench is per incuriam (Pranay Sethi). Ramsingbhai Jerambhai, a short three-Judge judgment that did not notice the earlier and fully reasoned three-Judge decision in Pradeep Kumari, could not displace it. (¶¶ 9, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
- Since the appellants' land was under the same notification, the High Court's first appeal judgment awarded more than the Collector's award, they had not sought a reference, and they applied within three months of that judgment, their case was fully covered by Pradeep Kumari, and the High Court erred in quashing the Collector's redetermination. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 25)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment of 25.11.2021 set aside; Land Acquisition Collector's order of 15.09.2020 enhancing compensation to Rs. 19,91,300 per acre with statutory benefits upheld.