BANWARI AND OTHERS versus HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (HSIIDC) AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2024] 12 S.C.R. 463 · Decided: 10-12-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 463 : 2024 INSC 951
Banwari and Others 
v. 
Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development 
Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) and Another
(Civil Appeal No. 13348 of 2024)
10 December 2024
[B.R. Gavai* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High 
Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent relying on 
Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai’s case and setting aside 
the order passed by the LAC holding that the application u/s.28-A 
can only be filed within a period of three months from any judgment 
of the Reference Court u/s.18, arising from the same acquisition 
but not from the date of judgment of this Court or the High Court.
Headnotes†
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4, 18, 28-A – Enhancement of 
compensation – Appellants awarded compensation for the land 
acquired for Kundli Manesar Palwal Expressway – Reference 
u/s.18 by similarly circumstanced land-owners for enhancement 
of compensation and the same was dismissed – However, the 
High Court allowed the Regular First Appeal and enhanced 
the compensation in respect of the land covered by the same 
notification under which the appellants’ land also covered – 
Subsequently, the appellants did not file Reference but filed an 
application u/s.28-A within a period of three months from the 
order of the High Court – LAC held that the appellants were 
entitled to the benefit of the order passed by the High Court 
and enhanced the compensation payable to the appellants as 
awarded to similarly circumstanced land-owners – Thereagainst, 
writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the High 
Court relying on Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai’s 
case and the order passed by the LAC was set aside holding 
that the application u/s.28-A can only be filed within a period 
of three months from any judgment of the Reference Court 
* Author
464
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
u/s.18, arising from the same acquisition but not from the date 
of judgment of this Court or the High Court – Correctness:
Held: 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 – 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 – 
Limitation for moving the application u/s.28-A will begin to run only 
from the date of the award on the basis of which redetermination of 
the compensation is sought – Application of the appellants u/s.28-A 
is within a period of three months from the order passed by the 
High Court – Judgment rendered in Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) 
Jerambhai’s case would reveal that the said case did not take note 
of the earlier view taken by three judges of this Court in the case of 
Pradeep Kumari and Others’s case – Judgment in Pradeep Kumari 
and Others case has been rendered after considering the relevant 
provisions of the Statute and the principles of interpretation – However, 
the judgment in the case of Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai’s 
case is a short judgment only referring to the text of s.28-A(1) – 
Statement of Objects and Reasons of s.28-A would reveal that the 
object underlying the enactment of the said provision is to remove 
inequality in the payment of compensation for same or similar quality 
of land – 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 u/s.18 – 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 
u/s.18 – Same benefit would be available to the other landholders 
u/s.28-A – s.28-A being a beneficent legislation, the principle of 
interpretation to be adopted is 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 – Thus, the judgment 
and order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside, and 
the order of the LAC is upheld. [Paras 15, 16, 19, 21, 22-25]
Per incuriam – Rule of per incuriam – Judgment, when  
per incuriam:
Held: Decision or judgment can be said to be per incuriam if it is n

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.