Himachal Pradesh High Court | Fair Compensation Under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act Must Extend to All Affected Landowners, Including Those Who Did Not Approach Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Single Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel quashed the Land Acquisition Collector’s order denying enhanced compensation to landowners and directed the State to re-determine compensation in line with the Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling. The Court held that once a fair rate of compensation for compulsory acquisition is judicially fixed, its benefit must extend to all landowners affected by the same notification. It further ruled that denying such relief to some merely because they did not approach the court amounts to discrimination under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The petitioners approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh challenging the decision of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 17 January 2023. Their land had been acquired for the construction of a Stadium-cum-Helipad at Rohru, District Shimla. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 18 September 1993, while possession of the land was taken earlier on 1 July 1984. An award was passed on 14 December 1995.
Several landowners sought references under Section 18 of the Act, but the petitioners did not. The District Judge enhanced the compensation to ₹23,440 per biswa by order dated 18 January 1997. Appeals by the State led to further litigation. Meanwhile, the petitioners filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act, which was allowed on 30 May 2011 pursuant to directions in related proceedings. The Collector assessed compensation payable to the petitioners at ₹64,53,599. However, this was reviewed on 13 January 2012, reducing the amount to ₹54,23,039 without their participation.
Some landowners carried the matter before the Supreme Court, which on 9 March 2016 allowed damages at 15% per annum on market value of land from 1 July 1984, the date of dispossession, until 2 September 1993, the date of notification. The petitioners contended that their land was acquired by the same notification and therefore they were entitled to identical benefits. They alleged discrimination as others similarly situated were paid in execution proceedings.
The respondents argued that the petitioners were not co-owners with those before the Supreme Court, and hence could not claim benefits of that judgment. They defended the Collector’s rejection order on this basis. The dispute thus centered on whether the petitioners could be denied parity in compensation despite their land being acquired under the same statutory process. The key provisions invoked were Sections 18 and 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, along with constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 16.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel recorded: “It is not in dispute that the land owners who were before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in whose favour the judgment was delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the year 2016, whose land was also acquired for the same project as the petitioners and that too, by way of the same Notification. This has not been disputed by the State.”
Rejecting the State’s contention, the Court stated: “This Court is of the considered view that this stand of the State is not justified in law.” The judgment noted that the benefit had been extended to other landowners similarly placed, even though they were not co-owners with those whose appeals were decided by the Supreme Court. The Court observed: “Therefore, when the benefit has been given to the other land owners whose land was acquired alongwith the land owners in whose cases orders were passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioners obviously cannot be discriminated.”
The Court further recorded: “The principle of redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court, as is culled out in Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is based on larger principle of equity that wherein the land owners have been deprived of their land as a result of compulsory acquisition, then they should be given best compensation for their land, of course subject to the riders contained in the Land Acquisition Act.”
Justice Goel referred to the Supreme Court decision in Narendra and Others versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2017) 9 SCC 426, observing: “Once we keep the aforesaid purpose in mind, the mere fact that the compensation which was claimed by some of the villagers was at lesser rate than the compensation which is ultimately determined to be fair compensation, should not be a ground to deny such persons appropriate and fair compensation on the ground that they claimed compensation at a lesser rate.”
The Court stated that the Supreme Court had held: “Once such a fair compensation is determined judicially, all landowners whose land was taken away by the same notification should become the beneficiary thereof. Not only it is an aspect of good governance, failing to do so would also amount to discrimination.”
In this light, the High Court held that the refusal to extend similar benefits to the petitioners was arbitrary, discriminatory, and unsustainable.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel concluded: “Accordingly, in view of the above observation, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 17.01.2023 (Annexure P-11) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to redetermine the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1867-1872 of 2009, decided on 09.03.2016.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General
Case Title: Vishwa Nath Sharma & Others versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:30828
Case Number: CWP No.9848 of 2023
Bench: Justice Ajay Mohan Goel
