The Supreme Court has held that landowners are entitled to enhanced compensation on a par with similarly situated co-landowners who secured higher payouts by challenging the initial compensation granted by the government as inadequate.
“To put it differently, when ‘A’ obtains an award from the reference court (trial court), ‘B’ can also receive the benefit of the same by invoking Section 28-A of the Act. Similarly, when ‘A’ receives an enhancement from the high court or this court (Supreme Court), ‘B’ is also entitled to receive the same enhancement, notwithstanding the earlier receipt of money under Section 28-A of the Act based upon the award of the reference court,” a bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotisswar Singh said in a judgment.
The apex court passed the ruling while setting aside a Karnataka High Court order which had taken a contrary stand by holding that landowners cannot seek enhanced compensation on a par with co-owners merely because the latter had obtained a higher compensation after approaching the high court.
In the present case, the appellant landowners had originally been awarded ₹40,000 per acre by the land acquisition officer. This amount was later re-determined by the district collector to ₹2.50 lakh per acre. However, other landowners had successfully secured ₹3.50 lakh per acre from the high court. The appellants’ request to receive compensation at the same enhanced rate was rejected by both the district collector and the high court.
The appellants then approached the Supreme Court, seeking parity in compensation for land acquired in Mavanoor village, Hubballi Taluk, for the Hubballi-Ankola Broad Gauge railway project.
Allowing the appeal, Justice Sundresh — who authored the judgment — emphasised that the objective of Section 28-A is to ensure equality among similarly placed landowners. The court held that concepts such as waiver or acquiescence do not apply in such cases, given the statutory mandate of the provision.
He added: “In the absence of any statutory prohibition, there is no bar for the appellants to seek re-determination of compensation on the basis of the award of the high court, even if they had previously filed an application after the award of the reference court. The fact that the appellants received the compensation, pursuant to the order passed on the earlier occasion, is irrelevant.”
The bench said the principle governing the “doctrine of merger” would apply in such cases.
“Once an appellate court renders a decision by setting aside the judgment of the lower court, the consequential decree or order passed by the appellate court merges with that of the lower court. This is based on the principle that there can only be one decree or order in operation at a given point in time,” the bench said while referring to earlier judicial precedents settled on the issue.