In a significant ruling that could impact thousands of land acquisition cases across India, the Supreme Court has held that landowners can seek revised compensation more than once especially when a higher court later enhances the amount.
The judgment clarifies how Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act should be applied, ensuring fairness among similarly placed landowners.
Background of the Case
The case, Andanayya and Others vs Deputy Chief Engineer and Others, arose from land acquired in Karnataka for the Hubballi–Ankola railway line project.
Read also:- Punjab & Haryana HC Refuses Habeas Corpus in Child Custody Row, Says Dispute Belongs Before Family Court
Initially, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation at ₹40,000 per acre in 2003. Dissatisfied landowners approached the Reference Court, which increased the amount to ₹2,00,000 per acre in 2006.
Some landowners, including the appellants, did not seek a reference at first. Instead, they later applied under Section 28-A for re-determination and received compensation based on the Reference Court’s award.
However, in 2013, the High Court further enhanced compensation to ₹3,50,000 per acre in related appeals. This prompted the appellants to file a second application seeking parity with others.
The authorities rejected the second application, arguing that:
- The landowners had already accepted earlier compensation
- A second claim under Section 28-A was not maintainable
Read also:- Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Hyderabad Land Case, Flags Misuse of Execution Proceedings
The High Court’s Division Bench agreed, holding that re-determination could only be based on a Reference Court award not a High Court judgment.
This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court closely examined the purpose of Section 28-A and emphasized that it is a beneficial provision meant to reduce inequality among landowners.
The bench observed that:
“The object of the Act is to ensure equality between similarly placed landowners.”
Importantly, the Court rejected a narrow reading of the law and clarified that appellate court decisions cannot be ignored.
Read also:- Graphology Reports Not Admissible Without Proving Scientific Relevance: Bombay High Court
Referring to legal principles, the bench noted:
“Once an appellate court passes an award, the earlier award merges into it.”
This “doctrine of merger” means the High Court’s enhanced compensation becomes the final operative award.
The Court also disagreed with earlier interpretations that restricted re-determination only to Reference Court awards, calling such a view inconsistent with the purpose of the law.
The Supreme Court held that:
- A second application under Section 28-A is maintainable
- Landowners can seek re-determination based on a High Court or even Supreme Court award
- Accepting earlier compensation does not bar a fresh claim
Read also:- Supreme Court Quashes Dowry Cruelty Case Against In-Laws, Flags ‘Vague Allegations’ and 7-Year Delay
The bench made it clear that denying such claims would defeat the goal of equal compensation.
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court set aside:
- The Karnataka High Court’s Division Bench judgment
- The rejection order passed by the authority
The Court directed the authorities to re-determine compensation for the appellants based on the High Court’s enhanced award of ₹3,50,000 per acre.
The exercise must be completed within eight weeks from receipt of the judgment.
Case Details
Case Title: Andanayya and Ors. vs Deputy Chief Engineer and Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2587–2593 of 2021
Judge: Justice M. M. Sundresh & Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
Decision Date: March 25, 2026
