The Supreme Court of India has held that re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be sought on the basis of appellate court judgments, including those of High Courts and the Supreme Court itself.

The bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh allowed appeals filed by landowners whose second application for enhanced compensation had been rejected.

The dispute arose from land acquisition proceedings initiated in 2002 for the Hubballi–Ankola Broad Gauge railway line in Karnataka. Initially, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation at ₹40,000 per acre. Subsequently, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to ₹2,00,000 per acre.

Some landowners, including the appellants, did not initially seek a reference under Section 18 but later invoked Section 28-A to claim parity with those who had secured higher compensation. Their first application was allowed based on the Reference Court’s award.

However, when the Karnataka High Court further enhanced compensation to ₹3,50,000 per acre, the appellants filed a second application under Section 28-A seeking similar benefits. This application was rejected by the authorities and later by a Division Bench of the High Court, which held that re-determination could only be based on Reference Court awards, not appellate judgments.

Setting aside the High Court’s decision, the apex court ruled that such a restrictive interpretation defeats the purpose of Section 28-A, which is a beneficial provision intended to ensure equal compensation for similarly placed landowners.

The Court emphasized that the term “court” under Section 28-A cannot be narrowly confined to the Reference Court alone. It includes appellate courts such as High Courts and the Supreme Court. Once an appellate court passes a judgment, the earlier award merges into it under the doctrine of merger, leaving only one operative award. Denying landowners the benefit of enhanced compensation granted at the appellate stage would perpetuate inequality, especially for those who did not initially seek a reference due to lack of resources or awareness.

The bench noted that the legislative intent behind Section 28-A is to bridge the gap between landowners who actively pursue litigation and those who do not, often due to socio-economic constraints.

Addressing the issue of whether multiple applications are permissible, the Court clarified that the restriction on filing only one application applies in cases involving multiple awards by the Reference Court. It does not bar a subsequent application based on an appellate court’s final judgment.

The Court distinguished earlier rulings and observed that certain precedents, particularly Ramsingbhai Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat, were rendered without considering key legal principles such as the doctrine of merger and the broader objective of the legislation. It therefore declined to follow that view.

Reiterating the doctrine of merger, the Court held that once an appellate court decides a matter, the original award ceases to exist independently and merges into the appellate decision. Therefore, the final compensation must be determined based on the appellate court’s ruling.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and restored the order of the Single Judge, directing authorities to re-determine compensation based on the enhanced amount awarded by the High Court.

Case Details

Case Title: Andanayya And Ors. Versus Deputy Chief Engineer And Ors. 

Citation: JURISHOUR-517-SC-2026

Case No.: SLP (C) Nos. 2587 – 2593 of 2021

Date: 25/03/2026

Read More: Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff