A landowner who has once obtained re-determination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not necessarily lose the right to benefit from a higher compensation subsequently awarded by an appellate court. Where similarly situated lands are covered by the same acquisition proceedings and the compensation is later enhanced by the High Court, the earlier re-determination cannot, by itself, operate as a ceiling on the amount payable.
The controversy arose because the appellants had already secured re-determination under Section 28A on the strength of an award passed by the Reference Court. Subsequently, the Delhi High Court enhanced the compensation for lands acquired under the same notification and award. The question was whether the appellants could obtain this additional benefit despite having already received compensation under Section 28A.
Setting aside the Reference Court’s approach, the High Court held that once the appellants’ entitlement under Section 28A stood recognised, they were entitled to the subsequent enhancement granted to similarly situated landowners. The decision draws upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in Andanayya and Others v. Deputy Chief Engineer and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 482, and highlights the role of parity and the doctrine of merger in determining compensation.
Facts Leading to the Dispute
The appellants owned land in the Revenue Estate of Village Bakkarwala, Delhi. Their properties were acquired following a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 17 June 2005 and a declaration under Section 6 dated 31 May 2006.
The acquisition resulted in Award No. 1/DC(W)/2006-07. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the value of the acquired land at ₹15,70,000 per acre.
Not every landowner accepted that valuation. Other persons whose lands had been acquired under the same notification and award sought references for enhancement.
One such proceeding was Kailashwati v. Union of India & Ors., LAC No. 7/9/07. On 26 April 2010, the Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation to ₹20,35,255 per acre, apart from the applicable statutory benefits.
The appellants had not sought references themselves. They therefore invoked Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act and asked the Collector to re-determine their compensation on the basis of the enhancement granted in Kailashwati. Their case was founded on the fact that their lands were governed by the same Section 4 notification and the same acquisition award.
A Further Enhancement During the Pendency of the Applications
The dispute acquired another dimension because the appellants’ Section 28A applications were not decided promptly.
During their pendency, the Delhi High Court decided Jamna v. Union of India & Ors., L.A. Appeal No. 784/2011, on 8 July 2011. That case also concerned land situated in Village Bakkarwala acquired pursuant to the same notification and award. The High Court further enhanced the compensation.
The appellants’ Section 28A applications nevertheless remained pending for a considerable period. They approached the Delhi High Court through writ petitions, following which a Coordinate Bench, by orders dated 21 March 2013, directed the Land Acquisition Collector to decide their applications expeditiously. The Court specifically took note of both Kailashwati and Jamna.
The Collector eventually passed orders on 29 May 2013.
Although the Section 28A applications were allowed, compensation was re-determined only according to the Reference Court’s decision in Kailashwati. The higher compensation subsequently awarded by the Delhi High Court in Jamna was not extended to the appellants.
Why the Landowners Approached the Reference Court Again
The appellants maintained that the re-determination could not stop at the amount awarded in Kailashwati. They sought references under Section 28A(3), asking that compensation be determined in accordance with Jamna.
According to them, there was no justification for paying them a lower amount when the High Court itself had determined higher compensation in respect of land covered by the same notification and acquisition award.
When the Collector did not forward their references, the appellants again approached the High Court. Orders dated 19 November 2013 were then passed directing the Land Acquisition Collector to forward the references to the competent court.
The Reference Court ultimately rejected their claim. It took the view that the appellants had already availed themselves of Section 28A on the basis of Kailashwati. In its opinion, the later judgment of the High Court under Section 54 did not provide a fresh cause of action for another re-determination under Section 28A.
The Reference Court consequently refused to extend the benefit of the compensation awarded in Jamna. That rejection resulted in the appeals before the Delhi High Court.
Question Before the High Court
The dispute raised an important question concerning the scope of Section 28A:
Can a landowner who has already obtained re-determination under Section 28A on the basis of a Reference Court award claim the benefit of a further enhancement subsequently granted by the High Court in relation to similarly situated land?
The answer depended on whether the earlier Section 28A determination exhausted the landowner’s statutory entitlement or whether the subsequent appellate enhancement could also be extended to maintain parity.
Submissions on Behalf of the Landowners
The appellants argued that the Reference Court had adopted an unduly restrictive interpretation of Section 28A. Their lands were situated in the same village and were acquired through the same notification and award as the lands considered in Jamna. The fact that they had earlier obtained re-determination based upon Kailashwati, they submitted, could not deprive them of the higher compensation subsequently determined by the High Court.
They further contended that where proceedings for enhancement relating to the same acquisition are pending before an appellate court, the outcome of those proceedings has a direct bearing on the compensation payable to similarly situated landowners.
The subsequent appellate enhancement, therefore, could not be disregarded merely because the Section 28A application had initially been founded on the Reference Court’s award.
Respondents Oppose Further Enhancement
The respondents maintained that the appellants could not seek another enhancement after their compensation had already been determined.
It was argued that the relevant determination had attained finality and that the appellants had already been awarded fair market value for their acquired lands. On this basis, the respondents contended that there was no justification for reopening the compensation question.
The Delhi High Court, however, did not accept the reasoning on which the appellants had been denied the subsequent enhancement.
Earlier Section 28A Entitlement Had Already Attained Finality
Justice Amit Mahajan identified an important flaw in the Reference Court’s approach. The appellants’ applications under Section 28A(1) had already been allowed. More importantly, the respondents had not challenged those orders. Their entitlement to re-determination under Section 28A had therefore attained finality.
The Reference Court was consequently not deciding whether the appellants could invoke Section 28A in the first place. The question before it was narrower: whether persons whose Section 28A entitlement had already been recognised could receive the benefit of a subsequent enhancement ordered by the High Court.
The Delhi High Court held that the Reference Court had incorrectly approached the matter by relying upon considerations concerning the appellants’ original entitlement under Section 28A.
Supreme Court’s Decision in Andanayya
The decisive authority for resolving the controversy was the Supreme Court’s judgment in Andanayya and Others v. Deputy Chief Engineer and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 482. The Delhi High Court noted that even the respondents did not dispute the applicability of the issue decided by the Supreme Court to the facts before it.
In Andanayya, the Supreme Court dealt directly with the effect of a subsequent appellate enhancement on a landowner who had already invoked Section 28A.
The Supreme Court held that a second application under Section 28A after an award passed by the High Court is maintainable and can be considered by the Collector or Land Acquisition Officer.
Equally significant was its conclusion that obtaining compensation pursuant to an earlier Section 28A application based on the Reference Court’s award does not prevent the same applicant from seeking further re-determination on the basis of an award subsequently passed by the High Court or Supreme Court.
This principle directly answered the objection that the appellants had exhausted their rights by accepting the earlier enhancement.
Doctrine of Merger
The doctrine of merger formed an important part of the reasoning relied upon by the Delhi High Court. Where the compensation determined by the Reference Court is taken in appeal and the appellate court passes a further award, the subsequent appellate determination cannot be treated as wholly disconnected from the earlier compensation proceedings.
The Supreme Court in Andanayya explained the consequence through the position of similarly placed landowners. If one landowner obtains enhanced compensation from the Reference Court, another landowner may obtain its benefit by invoking Section 28A. If the first landowner thereafter obtains still higher compensation from the High Court or Supreme Court, the similarly placed landowner is likewise entitled to claim that enhancement despite having already received money pursuant to the earlier Section 28A determination.
The previous receipt of compensation, therefore, does not freeze the entitlement at the amount initially awarded by the Reference Court.
Section 28A and the Principle of Parity
At the heart of the decision lies the principle that similarly situated landowners should not be left with materially different compensation merely because only some of them pursued the acquisition proceedings through successive appellate stages.
The Supreme Court recognised in Andanayya that the purpose of Section 28A is to maintain parity and equality in compensation among similarly placed landowners.
For that reason, the earlier acceptance of compensation does not create an automatic bar based on estoppel, waiver or acquiescence when the statutory requirements for re-determination are otherwise fulfilled.
The Delhi High Court’s application of this principle is particularly important. Once the appellants had been accepted as persons entitled to Section 28A re-determination, there was little basis for maintaining a lower compensation merely because their applications had initially been determined by reference to Kailashwati before the full effect of the appellate enhancement was extended to them.
Why Pradeep Kumari Did Not Bar the Claim
The Supreme Court’s clarification concerning Pradeep Kumari also assumes importance. A distinction must be maintained between a situation involving different awards passed by Reference Courts and one in which the compensation determined by a Reference Court is subsequently enhanced in appeal.
The Supreme Court explained that the decision in Pradeep Kumari had to be understood in the context of multiple awards passed by the Reference Court itself. It did not govern a situation where the later award was passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appellate proceedings.
Accordingly, a restriction developed in relation to successive Reference Court awards could not be used to deprive landowners of an appellate enhancement arising out of the same acquisition.
Decision of the Delhi High Court
Having considered Andanayya, the Delhi High Court held that the legal issue was no longer res integra. A person who satisfies the requirements of Section 28A is entitled to the relief granted to similarly situated persons who obtained enhanced compensation through reference proceedings and further appeals.
In the present cases, there was an additional factor in favour of the appellants: their applications under Section 28A had already been allowed and those orders had never been challenged.
Their entitlement under Section 28A was therefore not open to reconsideration. The Court accordingly held that the appellants were entitled to the enhanced compensation awarded to similarly situated persons in Jamna. The appeals were allowed with consequential reliefs.
What Does the Judgment Clarify?
The judgment provides an important clarification regarding the operation of Section 28A when compensation changes during the appellate process.
An award of the Reference Court may not necessarily represent the final judicial determination of the value of the acquired land. If that award is carried in appeal and the compensation is increased, landowners whose entitlement to Section 28A re-determination stands established cannot necessarily be confined to the earlier figure.
The judgment therefore prevents an anomalous situation in which two sets of similarly situated landowners covered by the same acquisition proceedings receive different compensation solely because one set obtained Section 28A relief before the appellate enhancement was given effect.
It also clarifies that receipt of compensation is not equivalent to surrendering the statutory right to seek the benefit of a subsequent appellate enhancement. The principles of waiver, acquiescence or estoppel cannot override the statutory scheme in circumstances covered by the rule recognised in Andanayya.
Broader Significance for Land Acquisition Claims
The decision is relevant beyond the immediate dispute concerning Village Bakkarwala. Land acquisition litigation frequently progresses through several stages. The Collector first determines compensation, the Reference Court may enhance it, and the High Court or Supreme Court may thereafter alter the valuation again.
Section 28A exists within this procedural setting. Its operation cannot always be confined to a snapshot of the compensation at the moment when the first re-determination application is decided.
The Delhi High Court’s decision recognises that subsequent appellate developments may affect the amount ultimately payable to similarly situated landowners. The crucial consideration is not simply whether an applicant has previously received an enhanced amount, but whether the subsequent judicial determination concerns comparable land and whether the applicant satisfies the statutory framework governing re-determination.
The ruling consequently strengthens the parity-based operation of Section 28A while distinguishing appellate enhancement from attempts to repeatedly rely upon different Reference Court awards.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Sky High Agro Expo Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr. makes it clear that an earlier re-determination of compensation under Section 28A does not necessarily bring a landowner’s entitlement to an end.
The appellants’ lands had initially been valued at ₹15,70,000 per acre. They later received ₹20,35,255 per acre under Section 28A on the basis of the Reference Court’s decision in Kailashwati. When compensation for similarly situated land was subsequently enhanced by the Delhi High Court in Jamna, the earlier re-determination could not be treated as a bar to extending that benefit to them.
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Andanayya, the Delhi High Court recognised that a landowner who has already received compensation under Section 28A on the basis of a Reference Court award may still seek the benefit of a subsequent enhancement by the High Court or Supreme Court.
The decision thus places the emphasis where Section 28A requires it to be placed: on maintaining parity in compensation among similarly situated landowners rather than allowing the timing of individual proceedings to produce an unjustified difference in compensation.