Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai directed the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Moradabad, to deposit the enhanced compensation awarded to landowners under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within six weeks. The Court, while allowing the landowners’ petition and dismissing those filed by the Samiti, clarified that Section 28-A is a beneficial provision and that the limitation for filing such applications begins from the date of the award relied upon for redetermination, not from any earlier award subsequently set aside by a higher court.

The dispute arose from the acquisition of approximately 47.98 acres of land in village Majhola, Moradabad, for the construction of a market yard by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (KUMS). The State Government issued the acquisition notification in 1977, and possession of the land was taken in July of that year. The Special Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation at Rs.15.75 per square yard in 1982. Several landowners challenged this determination through references before the District Judge, which were initially dismissed in 1989. Upon review, the Reference Court in 1990 enhanced the compensation to Rs.64 per square metre with statutory benefits.

Also Read: Magistrates Can Direct Voice Samples from Witnesses as Well as Accused; Article 20(3) Not Violated: Supreme Court

The KUMS appealed these orders before the High Court, which remanded the matters for fresh determination. The Reference Court, upon reconsideration, in 2016 and 2017 awarded compensation at Rs.108 per square metre. These awards were upheld by the High Court and later by the Supreme Court in 2020. Following these decisions, landowners who had not sought reference earlier filed applications under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking re-determination of compensation based on the 2016 award. The Special Land Acquisition Officer allowed the applications in February 2022, granting enhanced compensation.

The landowners subsequently sought enforcement of this order, while the KUMS challenged it, contending that the applications were barred by limitation and not maintainable since the claimants had accepted the original compensation without protest. The KUMS also argued that interest on enhanced compensation was beyond the authority of the Land Acquisition Officer. The landowners argued that their applications were within limitation, filed within three months from the 2016 award, and supported by the Supreme Court’s decision in Banwari v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation. The case thus centered on the interpretation of Section 28-A of the Act, particularly regarding limitation and entitlement to redetermination of compensation.

It recorded that “Section 28-A is a beneficent provision enacted to address the inherent inequality in compensation awards that arose due to the inability of inarticulate and poor landowners to effectively utilize the reference mechanism under Section 18 of the Act, 1894.” The Court noted that the provision was introduced to “remove disparity in compensation payments for lands of similar quality and characteristics falling under the same acquisition notification.”

Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Banwari and others v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (2025 AIR SC 165), the Bench stated that “Section 28-A being a beneficent legislation must be construed liberally to advance its policy objective rather than adopting a restrictive interpretation that would curtail the relief intended to be provided.” The Court reiterated that judicial interpretation should not “read words into the statute that are not present therein, particularly when such reading would restrict the scope and amplitude of the beneficial provision.”

The Bench observed that “the limitation period under Section 28-A commences from the date of the specific award on the basis of which redetermination is sought, not from the date of any earlier award that may have been subsequently challenged or set aside.” Applying this, the Court found that the landowners’ applications filed in April 2016, within three months of the January 30, 2016 award, were timely.

The Bench remarked that “an order that has been judicially annulled cannot serve as the foundation for computing limitation for subsequent proceedings.” The Court held that requiring landowners to base their applications on an award set aside in appeal “would lead to an absurd situation and defeat the purpose of the provision.”

Citing Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari (1995) 2 SCC 736, the Court reaffirmed that applicants could rely on “any subsequent award that grants higher compensation, provided the application is filed within three months of such award.” It further observed that the delay alleged by KUMS was occasioned by its own litigation, noting that “it would be inequitable to penalize landowners for delays caused by the acquiring body’s own actions.”

Addressing the objection on financial burden, the Bench stated, “Compensation for land acquisition is not a gratuitous payment but a constitutional obligation under Article 31 of the Constitution of India. The State’s duty to provide just compensation is not diminished by financial considerations.” The judgment recorded that Section 28-A “serves the larger public policy of ensuring equitable treatment of all landowners affected by acquisition.”

The Court drew further support from Union of India v. Hansoli Devi (2002) 7 SCC 273, where it was held that dismissal of an application under Section 18 for delay “amounts to not filing an application within the meaning of Section 28-A.” It noted that accepting compensation, with or without protest, did not bar landowners from being treated as aggrieved persons under the provision.

The Bench concluded that “the doctrine of equal treatment demands that similarly situated persons should receive similar compensation for similar lands.” It stated that the SLAO had acted correctly in issuing notices, hearing objections, and applying the law, stating that “the SLAO’s order demonstrates due application of mind and correct appreciation of legal principles.”

The Court finally recorded that “while the KUMS raises concerns about financial implications, beneficial legislation like Section 28-A exists precisely to protect the rights of those who, due to various constraints, cannot initially assert their claims through formal legal processes.” The Bench described the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Banwari as “a beacon for courts dealing with similar issues, emphasizing that technical objections cannot be allowed to defeat the substantive rights of landowners.”

The Court directed that “the KUMS shall immediately comply with the order dated 17.02.2022 passed by the SLAO, Moradabad and deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with statutory benefits within six weeks from today.” It further directed that “in case of non-compliance within the stipulated period, the amount shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of default until actual payment.”

Also Read: S.179(1) BNSS | Police Cannot Compel Presence Of ‘Any Person’ Acquainted With Case As Matter Of Right | AP High Court Directs Examination At Residence Or Neutral Venue

“The landowners are entitled to enhanced compensation at Rs.108/- per square metre along with 30% solatium, 12% additional compensation, and interest at the prescribed rates as determined by the SLAO.” The Court expressed disapproval of the prolonged litigation, observing that “the wheels of justice, though they grind slowly, must ultimately ensure that justice is not only done but is seen to be done.”

“In letter and spirit, ensuring that the landowners receive their due compensation without further delay or harassment.” It reminded that compensation “is not a largesse but a legal entitlement that has been long overdue.” The petitions were accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Shri Sudeep Harkauli, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Shri Suresh C. Dwivedi, Advocate; Shri Devesh Vikram, Additional Chief Standing Counsel; Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, Standing Counsel.

Neutral Citation:2025:AHC:169573-DB
Case Title: Ved Prakash Saini and 45 Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Case Number: Writ-C No. 35876 of 2022 (Connected Writs Nos. 36490, 36496, 36503, 36510, 36515, 36524, 36528, 36537, 36541 of 2022)
Bench: Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai