Land Acquisition Compensation Determination Discrepancy

Explore the nuanced legal analysis by the court regarding the discrepancy in land acquisition compensation determination. Focusing on the application of Section 28(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the case sheds light on the complexities involved in re-determining compensation. Stay tuned to unravel the legal insights in this intriguing legal saga.


  • The present Civil Appeal pertains to the acquisition of 30.1 Ares of land owned by the Appellant for the construction of a railway line.
  • The land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the public purpose of the railway project.
  • The Appellant’s land, along with his father’s and brother’s land, was acquired through the same notification.
  • The compensation for the acquired land was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs. 454 per Are for wet land and Rs. 2,137 per Are for dry land.
  • The Appellant received a partial payment towards compensation on 29.04.1982.
  • The Reference Petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed as it was considered that the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was adequate.
  • An Application for restoration of the Reference Petition was filed by the Appellant, citing the absence of legal representation during the hearing.
  • The Court declined to answer the Reference as it was not bound to do so.
  • The Reference Application was held to be barred by limitation as it was filed beyond six months from the date of knowledge of the Collector’s Award.
  • High Court set aside the Order of the Reference Court dated 02.08.2001 and restored L.A.R. No 23/97 to the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cherthala.
  • The Subordinate Judge was directed to provide an opportunity for both the claimant and the Government to adduce evidence and decide the matter in accordance with the law.
  • In Reference Petition L.A.R. No 22/97 filed by the brother-Sugadhan Sanu, the Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation for the brother’s land, deducting the amount already paid.
  • The Subordinate Court granted Solatium @ 30%, other benefits under Sections 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and half of the costs incurred in the proceedings.

Also Read: Analysis of ‘Cause of Action’ in Jurisdictional Transfer Petition


  • The High Court refused to interfere with the Subordinate Judge’s order due to the appellant’s lack of explanation for a 15-year delay.
  • Appellant has filed an appeal with the present court against the High Court’s decision.
  • Appellant relies on Section 28(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to argue for compensation re-determination.
  • The Reference Court awarded Rs. 8,500 per Are for lands owned by the appellant’s father and brother under the same Notification.
  • Reference Petitions challenging the Land Acquisition Officer’s Award were filed in 1997 by the appellant, his father, and his brother simultaneously.
  • The Reference Court did not consider previous judgments in L.A.R. No 25/1997 and L.A.R. No 22/97 where a rate of Rs. 8,500 per Are was granted for similar land in the same Survey No 166.
  • The Appellant’s land is in the same Survey No 166 and should therefore be granted compensation at the same rate of Rs. 8,500 per Are.
  • The delay in filing Reference Petitions by the father and brother of the Appellant did not serve as a ground for denying them relief in the previous cases.

Also Read: Analysis of Limitation in Arbitration Proceedings


  • Appellant entitled to Solatium @ 30% of the amount awarded
  • Appellant entitled to benefits under Section 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
  • Appellant entitled to half of the costs incurred in the proceedings
  • Judgments of the Reference Court and High Court are set aside
  • Appellant entitled to interest at the same rate as awarded to the claimants in other cases
  • Appellant granted compensation @ Rs.8,500 per Are for the land owned by him
  • Appeal allowed with no orders as to costs


Case Number: C.A. No.-000138-000138 / 2012

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *