Co-Owner Cannot Be Denied Enhanced Compensation Granted To Other Co-Owners Under Same Acquisition: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a co-owner whose land has been acquired is entitled to the same compensation as another co-owner, even if the former did not independently seek a reference under the Land Acquisition Act. The Court observed that once fair compensation is judicially determined for land acquired under the same notification, denying the same to similarly placed co-owners on technical grounds would amount to discrimination.
A division bench comprising Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi was hearing a writ petition seeking parity in compensation for land acquired in 1988 for the Ghanvi Hydel Power Project, where a jointly owned land was acquired and compensation awarded in 1991. While one of the joint owners successfully pursued a reference under the Land Acquisition Act, leading to enhanced compensation (later modified in appeal), the other joint owner neither sought a reference under Section 18 nor redetermination under Section 28-A within the limitation, and accepted the original award. Subsequent claims by his successors for equal compensation were rejected earlier, and in the present petition, the respondents opposed relief on grounds of delay, laches, and failure to follow statutory remedies, contending that compensation cannot be claimed outside the prescribed legal procedure.
The Court examined the issue in light of settled principles governing land acquisition compensation. The Court noted that a land loser should not be deprived of legitimate compensation when similarly situated co-owners have received higher compensation through judicial determination.
Emphasising the principle of fairness in compulsory acquisition, the Court found that acquisition under the Act is based on the doctrine of eminent domain, where landowners are not willing participants. Therefore, ensuring fair and just compensation is paramount, and once such compensation is judicially determined, it should enure to the benefit of all landowners covered by the same acquisition.
“… while dealing with the issue of acquisitions, rendering of substantial justice to the party whose land has been acquired is the paramount consideration… Once a fair compensation has been judicially determined, then it is an imperative of good governance that all the landowners whose lands have been acquired should get the same benefit. Discrimination in the grant of compensation on technical grounds needs to be avoided in order to give a fair treatment to all concerned,” the Court observed.
While acknowledging that the petitioners could have sought redetermination under Section 28-A within the prescribed period, the Court held that the relief in favour of the petitioners should not be curtailed.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed that the petitioners be granted compensation at the same rate as awarded to the co-owner, along with applicable benefits, with directions to complete the process within three months.
Case Title: Sohan Lal (Deceased) through LRs. v. HP Electricity Board and Ors.