Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Corporate Law

Second Section 28-A Application After HC Enhancement Maintainable: SC

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 14074
Case Name
Andanayya And Ors. Vs Deputy Chief Engineer And Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Advertisement

Andanayya And Ors. Vs Deputy Chief Engineer And Ors. (Supreme Court of India)

Summary: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of landowners whose second application for re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been rejected. Lands at Mavanoor Village, Hubballi Taluk, were acquired for the Hubballi-Ankola Broad Gauge Line pursuant to a preliminary notification dated 18.04.2002 under Section 4(1). The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.40,000 per acre on 31.03.2003. Some landowners sought references under Section 18, resulting in enhancement to Rs.2,00,000 per acre on 17.11.2006. The appellants, who had not sought references, filed their first Section 28-A application on 01.02.2007. While that application was pending, appeals concerning the Reference Court award were also pending before the Karnataka High Court. Nevertheless, after the acquiring authority’s appeals were dismissed, the appellants’ first Section 28-A application was allowed on 02.04.2013 on the basis of the Reference Court award. Subsequently, on 22.07.2013, the High Court allowed the landowners’ appeals and further enhanced compensation to Rs.3,50,000 per acre.

The appellants then filed another Section 28-A application on 25.11.2013 seeking parity with the enhanced High Court award. The LAO rejected this second application, and although the Single Judge directed reconsideration, the Division Bench reversed that order relying on Ramsingbhai Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat, which had treated Section 28-A as confined to awards of the Reference Court. The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme, including Sections 3(d), 28-A and 54, the beneficial object of the 1984 amendment, and the doctrine of merger. It held that although Section 3(d) defines “Court” as the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, an appellate award of the High Court or Supreme Court relating to proceedings under Part III cannot be artificially separated from the original award. Once an appellate court decides the matter, the original award merges into the appellate award and only one operative award survives.

Paid content

Become a Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 21,862

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.