A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Vishwanathan relied upon the ruling in the case of Union of India and Another Vs Pradeep Kumari and Others (1995) to point out that all aggrieved parties whose land is covered by the same notification to seek redetermination, once any of them has obtained orders for payment of higher compensation from the reference court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

 

The High Court had placed reliance on the judgments of the top court including the case of Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai Vs State of Gujarat and Another (2018) whereby it was held that the application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can only be filed within a period of three months from any judgment of the reference court under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, arising from the same acquisition but not from the date of judgment of this court or the High Court.

 

The appellants contended the High Court erred in relying upon 2018 judgment which had ignored the SC judgment in Union of India and Another Vs Pradeep Kumari and Others (1995).

 

In the present case, the bench noted it was not in dispute that the first appeal which was allowed by the High Court by its judgment and order on May 2, 2016 was in respect of the land which was covered by the same notification under which notification the appellants’ land is also covered.

 

The court also pointed out that it was also not in dispute that the amount awarded by the High Court in the said first appeal was in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the 1894 Act in the case of the land of the appellants.

 

"It is also not in dispute that the appellants had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. The application made by the appellants under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act to the Collector was within a period of three months from the date of the judgment and order of the High Court," the bench said.

 

Referring to the judgment of the top court in the case of Pradeep Kumari and Others, the bench said, it is clear that the limitation for moving the application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act will begin to run only from the date of the award on the basis of which redetermination of the compensation is sought.

 

The appellants sought redetermination of the compensation on the basis of the judgment and order of the High Court of May 2, 2016. The application of the appellants under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act was within a period of three months from May 2, 2016.

 

"We are, therefore, of the considered view that the case of the appellants is fully covered by the judgment of this court in the case of Pradeep Kumari and Others," the bench said.

 

The bench also noted that the cases of Pradeep Kumari and Others and Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai were decided by a bench strength of three judges of this court on March 10, 1995 and April 24, 2018 respectively.

 

"A perusal of the judgment rendered in Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai, would reveal that the said case does not take note of the earlier view taken by three judges of this court in the case of Pradeep Kumari and Others," the bench said.

 

Referring to the Constitution bench judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and Others (2017), the bench said that it has been held in unequivocal terms that an earlier decision of a bench of particular strength would be binding on the subsequent benches of this court having the same or lesser number of judges.

 

"While considering the rule of per incuriam, the Constitution bench of this court has held that a decision or judgment can be said to be per incuriam if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously pronounced judgment of a co-equal or larger bench," the bench said.

 

The bench also said that in any case, the judgment in Pradeep Kumari and Others had been rendered by three judges of the top court after considering the relevant provisions of the Statute and the principles of interpretation.

 

"However, the judgment in the case of Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai is a short judgment only referring to the text of Section 28-A(1) of the 1894 Act," the bench said.

 

The bench pointed out the provisions of Section 28-A(1) of the 1894 Act have been elaborately considered by a three judges bench of the top court in the case of Pradeep Kumari and Others.

 

The court again pointed out in the said case, it had been held that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Section 28-A would reveal that the object underlying the enactment of the said provision was to remove inequality in the payment of compensation for same or similar quality of land.

 

It has been held that the said provision is for giving benefit to inarticulate and poor people not being able to take advantage of the right of reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act. It has been held that this is sought to be achieved by providing an opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose land is covered by the same notification to seek redetermination once any of them has obtained orders for payment of higher compensation from the reference court under Section 18 of the Act. The same benefit would be available to the other landholders under Section 28-A, court said.

 

It has been held that Section 28-A being a beneficent legislation enacted in order to give relief to the inarticulate and poor people, the principle of interpretation which would be required to be adopted is the one which advances the policy of the legislation to extend the benefit rather than a construction which has the effect of curtailing the benefit conferred by it, the bench further noted.

 

The court thus set aside the High Court's judgment of November 25, 2021 and upheld the order of the Land Acquisition Collector of September 15, 2020.