Technical Dismissal of a Section 18 Reference Does Not Bar Re-determination under Section 28-A — A Commentary on Sumanbai Prabhkar Igave v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Bombay High Court, 31 July 2025

1. Introduction

The Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench has delivered a significant ruling clarifying the inter-play between Section 18 and Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“L.A. Act”). At the heart of Sumanbai Prabhkar Igave v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. was the question whether a landowner whose Section 18 reference was dismissed not on merits but on technical grounds (delay/lack of evidence) can still invoke Section 28-A when a co-villager later secures enhanced compensation for the same acquisition.

The petitioner, Sumanbai Igave, had lost her Section 18 reference in 2009 due to failure to adduce evidence. Her further challenges before the High Court (revision) and the Supreme Court (SLP) were rejected solely on limitation. When a neighbour obtained a higher rate in 2014, she promptly filed a Section 28-A application, which the Collector rejected on the ground that she had already “availed” Section 18. The High Court has now quashed that order and directed fresh consideration, thereby affirming that a non-adjudicated or ineffectively adjudicated reference does not debar a claimant from the special remedy under Section 28-A.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Court held that dismissal of a Section 18 reference for delay or any other procedural/technical defect does not amount to an “effective reference”.
• Consequently, such dismissal is treated as if no reference had been made for the purpose of Section 28-A.
• The Collector’s refusal to entertain the petitioner’s Section 28-A request was therefore illegal and violative of the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench in Union of India v. Hansoli Devi (2002) 7 SCC 273.
• The Court set aside the Collector’s order, directed fresh adjudication on merits under Section 28-A, and excluded interest for the period prior to the application (as offered by the petitioner).

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Their Influence

Key authorities shaped the outcome:

1. Union of India v. Hansoli Devi, (2002) 7 SCC 273.
   • Constitution Bench; held that dismissal of a Section 18 reference on limitation is tantamount to not making an application, thereby keeping Section 28-A open.
   • Bombay High Court applied this ratio squarely, treating the petitioner’s earlier dismissal as an “ineffective application”.
2. Mewa Ram v. State of Haryana, (1986) 4 SCC 151 & Babua Ram v. State of U.P., (1995) 2 SCC 689
   • Both restrict Section 28-A when a party’s reference is properly adjudicated. The Respondent relied on these, but the Court distinguished them because there had been no adjudication on merits in Igave’s case.
3. Bombay High Court precedents: Kawadu Bansod (2004), Mukund Kalshetti (2011), Subhash Rajput (2012).
   • These deal with revision remedies after references are dismissed for non-prosecution. They buttressed the view that such dismissal is not a decision on market value.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Textual Interpretation of Section 28-A:
   • The phrase “notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18” safeguards persons who in substance never received a judicial determination.
   • A literal reading would defeat the remedial purpose of the 1984 amendment aimed at parity for non-litigating landowners.
2. Concept of an “Effective” Reference:
   • Relying on Hansoli Devi, the Court held an application dismissed in limine for delay or technical defects is not “effective”.
   • Only an adjudicated reference where the court assesses evidence and determines market value forecloses Section 28-A.
3. Doctrine of Merger & Finality:
   • Although orders of High Court and Supreme Court rejected her challenges, the underlying cause (reference on merits) remained undecided; hence Section 28-A relief survived.
4. Equitable Considerations:
   • The Court acknowledged that Section 28-A is a “beneficial” provision, warranting liberal construction to avoid inequality among landowners affected by the same notification.

3.3 Potential Impact

• Access to Enhanced Compensation: Landowners whose references failed on technicalities now have a clear route to parity, promoting substantive justice over procedural lapses.
• Administrative Burden on Collectors: Collectors must examine the nature of earlier Section 18 proceedings rather than reject applications mechanically.
• Litigation Strategy: Lawyers may advise clients to preserve Section 28-A rights even when references face procedural hurdles, possibly streamlining evidence requirements.
• Uniformity Across India: Although rooted in Supreme Court precedent, the Bombay decision reinforces the principle in a large state, making contrary administrative circulars untenable.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Section 18 Reference: A formal request by an aggrieved landowner to refer the matter to the civil court for higher compensation.
• Section 28-A Re-determination: A special, time-bound application allowing similarly placed landowners (who did not litigate) to claim the higher rate awarded to others.
• Effective vs. Ineffective Reference: An “effective” reference is adjudicated on merits (court decides market value). An “ineffective” one is dismissed for reasons such as delay, non-prosecution, or jurisdiction; no value determination occurs.
• Doctrine of Merger: Once a higher court disposes of a matter, the lower court’s order merges into the higher order. However, if the higher court also decides on limitation, the merits remain untouched.
• Beneficial Legislation: Laws intended to confer benefits (like fair compensation) must be construed liberally to fulfil their purpose.

5. Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision in Igave fortifies the protective canopy that Section 28-A was designed to provide. By holding that a technically dismissed Section 18 reference does not shut the door on re-determination, the Court has ensured that procedural missteps do not permanently deprive landowners of fair compensation enjoyed by their neighbours.

Key takeaways:

1. Only a merits-based adjudication of a Section 18 reference bars a claimant from Section 28-A.
2. Collectors must scrutinise the nature of earlier proceedings before rejecting Section 28-A applications.
3. The ruling re-affirms the Constitution Bench view in Hansoli Devi and provides a robust precedent for similarly situated claimants across India.

In the broader legal landscape, Igave champions substantive justice, reminding both courts and administrators that the Land Acquisition Act’s ultimate aim is equitable compensation, not procedural perfection.