.jpeg){kind=small}
Case Snapshot
Case Name: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority & Anr. v. Rajveer Singh & Ors.
Citation: SLP (C) No.18801 of 2025)
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date of Judgment: September 21, 2026
Area of Law: Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 28A; Limitation; Reference Court Award
The Judgment in One Line
Supreme Court holds that a Section 28A application must be based on a Reference Court award, not an appellate order, and limitation runs from that award.
Why this Judgement Matters
This judgment clarifies the scope of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It holds that the limitation period for seeking redetermination of compensation begins from the date of the Reference Court’s award, not from a later order passed by the High Court in first appeal. The ruling protects the finality of acquisition proceedings and prevents landowners from filing belated claims based on subsequent appellate orders. It also distinguishes the limited exception recognised in Banwari, where the first enhancement is granted by the High Court after the reference was rejected.
Background
The predecessors of the respondent-landowners received compensation under an award dated 15.02.1977 and did not seek reference under Section 18. Other landowners sought reference, which was rejected by the Reference Court on 25.11.1981. In first appeal, the High Court disposed of the matter on 18.04.2022, relying on an earlier first appeal order dated 08.07.2019. The respondents filed a Section 28A application on 23.05.2022, within three months of the 2022 order. The Collector rejected it as not maintainable. The High Court allowed the writ petition, relying on Pradeep Kumari and Banwari. The Authority appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Court
Whether a Section 28A application can be based on an order passed by the High Court in first appeal under Section 54.
Whether limitation under Section 28A runs from the Reference Court’s award or from a subsequent appellate order.
Whether the exception in Banwari applies where the Reference Court rejected the reference without any enhancement.
Whether successive appellate orders can create fresh cause of action under Section 28A.
What Did the Supreme Court Hold?
Section 28A Requires a Reference Court Award
Section 28A speaks of compensation allowed by a “Court” in excess of the Collector’s award under Section 11.
This refers only to a Reference Court acting under Section 18/26.
An order in first appeal under Section 54 is not an award of the Reference Court.
Limitation therefore runs from the Reference Court’s award, not from an appellate order.
Exception in Banwari Is Limited
In Banwari, the reference under Section 18 was rejected in toto without any enhancement.
The first enhancement was granted by the High Court in first appeal.
Only in that situation can Section 28A be invoked from the High Court’s order.
This exception does not apply where the High Court merely follows an earlier appellate order without independent enhancement.
Present Case Falls Outside the Exception
Annexure P1 dated 18.04.2022 merely followed the earlier first appeal order dated 08.07.2019.
It did not grant any enhancement at the first instance.
Limitation commenced on 08.07.2019 and expired on 07.10.2019.
The application filed on 23.05.2022 was clearly barred by limitation.
No Fresh Cause of Action from Successive Appellate Orders
Successive orders in first appeal do not create fresh cause of action under Section 28A.
A High Court is bound by a coordinate Bench’s earlier order.
Only one application under Section 28A is permitted.
Andanayya Doubted
The proposition in Andanayya that a second application after a High Court award is maintainable was doubted.
It conflicts with three-Judge Bench decisions in Jose Antonio Cruz and Pradeep Kumari and a coordinate Bench in Hansoli Devi.
No reference was made as the issue did not arise in the present facts.
Key Legal Principles
Section 28A application must be based on an award of the Reference Court, not an appellate order.
Limitation under Section 28A runs from the date of the Reference Court’s award.
The exception in Banwari applies only where the reference was rejected in toto and the first enhancement is granted by the High Court.
Successive appellate orders do not create fresh cause of action under Section 28A.
Only one application under Section 28A is maintainable by an applicant.
A subsequent appellate order following an earlier coordinate Bench decision does not extend limitation.
The doctrine of merger cannot be invoked to permit a second Section 28A application after the High Court enhances compensation.
Important Precedents
Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari – Three-Judge Bench held Section 28A can be invoked from any successive Reference Court award, not just the first.
Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodrigues v. Land Acquisition Collector – Three-Judge Bench held “Court” in Section 28A refers only to Reference Court under Section 18; limitation runs from its order, not appellate order.
Union of India v. Hansoli Devi – Constitution Bench noticed doubt on Pradeep Kumari regarding successive awards but did not decide it; reaffirmed limitation from Reference Court award.
Banwari v. HSIIDC – Exception recognised: where reference is rejected without enhancement, first enhancement by High Court in first appeal can trigger Section 28A.
Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. Special Land Acquisition Officer – Limitation runs from date of award, not date of knowledge.
Bharatsing v. State of Maharashtra – Collector should keep Section 28A application in abeyance if appeal against Reference Court award is pending.
Andanayya v. Deputy Chief Engineer – Doubted; proposition that second application after High Court award is maintainable conflicts with larger Bench decisions.
Practical Impact
For Advocates: Section 28A applications must be filed within three months of the Reference Court’s award, not a later appellate order. The Banwari exception is narrow and fact-specific.
For Future Litigation: The ruling will be cited to oppose belated Section 28A claims based on subsequent High Court orders.
For Landowners: If reference was rejected and the High Court grants the first enhancement, Section 28A may be available from that order. Otherwise, limitation runs from the Reference Court award.
Lawcurb Quick Insight
The Court noted that Annexure P1 dated 18.04.2022 merely followed the earlier first appeal order dated 08.07.2019. No fresh limitation arose from the later order. The application filed in 2022 was barred by limitation.
Lawcurb Practice Note
Advocates should verify whether the Section 28A application is based on a Reference Court award or an appellate order. If based on an appellate order, check whether the Banwari exception applies—only where the reference was rejected in toto and the High Court granted the first enhancement.
Remember this Ratio
Section 28A application must be based on a Reference Court award; limitation runs from that award, not a subsequent appellate order.
Final Outcome
Civil Appeal allowed.
Impugned High Court order set aside.
Application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 rejected as barred by limitation.
Pending applications rejected.
No order as to costs.
Lawcurb Verdict
This judgment is a significant clarification on the limitation and scope of Section 28A. By holding that limitation runs from the Reference Court award, not a later appellate order, the Court prevents belated claims and protects the finality of acquisition proceedings. The narrow Banwari exception is correctly confined to cases where the reference was rejected and the High Court granted the first enhancement. A well-reasoned judgment that upholds the statutory scheme.
Exam Lens
Question 1: When can an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 be filed? What is the starting point of limitation?
Answer: Section 28A allows a landowner who did not seek reference under Section 18 to apply for redetermination of compensation if another landowner’s reference under the same notification results in enhancement by the Reference Court. The application must be filed within three months from the date of the Reference Court’s award. Limitation runs from the Reference Court award, not from a subsequent appellate order. In the present case, the Supreme Court held that the application filed in 2022 based on a 2022 first appeal order was barred because limitation had commenced from the earlier first appeal order dated 08.07.2019.
Question 2: What is the exception recognised in Banwari regarding Section 28A?
Answer: In Banwari, the reference under Section 18 was rejected in toto without any enhancement. The first enhancement was granted by the High Court in first appeal. The Supreme Court held that in such a situation, Section 28A can be invoked from the High Court’s order. This exception is limited to cases where the Reference Court rejected the reference without any enhancement. It does not apply where the High Court merely follows an earlier appellate order without independent enhancement.
Question 3: Can successive appellate orders create a fresh cause of action under Section 28A?
Answer: No. Successive appellate orders do not create fresh cause of action under Section 28A. Only one application is permitted. The doctrine of merger cannot be invoked to file a second application after the High Court enhances compensation. The Supreme Court doubted the contrary view in Andanayya and held it conflicts with larger Bench decisions.
This report is prepared by Lawcurb for educational and informational purposes only. It is a concise summary of the judgment and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to refer to the original judgment before relying on any legal proposition.