Co-owners’ Parity in Land Acquisition Compensation: Enhanced Market Value Cannot Be Denied on Technical Non-Invocation of Section 18/28-A
1. Introduction
The Himachal Pradesh High Court in Sohan Lal (Since deceased) through his LRs v. HP Electricity Board and Others
(decided on 18.03.2026) addressed a recurring inequity in land acquisition litigation: where land held jointly is acquired
under the same notification, one co-owner successfully pursues enhancement before the Reference Court and appellate court,
while the other co-owner—often due to poverty, illiteracy, or procedural lapses—remains confined to the original award.
The acquisition related to land at Village Ghanvi, Rampur Busahr, H.P., for setting up the Ghanvi Hydel Power Project.
The joint land belonged equally to two brothers, Bahu Ram and Kali Ram (sons of Phindu).
The petitioners are legal representatives of Kali Ram (and the connected proforma respondent No.4 is also part of the
family matrix as noted in the proceedings). The core issue was whether Kali Ram’s successors could be denied the same
enhanced compensation that Bahu Ram’s side ultimately received, merely because Kali Ram did not invoke statutory remedies
within limitation.
Initially, the writ petition also challenged the constitutionality of limitation in Sections 18 and 28-A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, but that challenge was given up after a Coordinate Bench decision in
Mohammad Ali Vs. Land Acquisition Collector upheld the vires to that extent.
The surviving relief was confined to parity in compensation.
2. Summary of the Judgment
- Notification under Section 4 was issued on 08.09.1988; the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) passed the award on 20.11.1991.
- Bahu Ram sought a reference under Section 18 (Reference No.19-R/4 of 1997). Kali Ram did not.
- The District Judge (Reference Court) enhanced compensation by award dated 07.03.2003 (uniform rate approximating Rs.88,000 per bigha).
- In appeal under Section 54 (RFA No.112 of 2003), the High Court on 02.09.2008 reduced the rate to Rs.48,400 per bigha.
- Kali Ram’s side approached the High Court by writ petition filed on 03.11.2010 seeking the same rate and statutory benefits.
- The Court held that the petitioners/proforma respondent No.4 were legitimately entitled to the same compensation as Bahu Ram,
and such benefit could not be denied on “hyper-technical grounds.”
- Relief was granted with directions to complete “the needful” within three months.
3. Analysis
3.1 Precedents Cited
This case served a threshold function: it foreclosed the constitutional attack on Sections 18 and 28-A insofar as the
limitation period is concerned. As a result, the petitioners narrowed the dispute to the entitlement to compensation
parity rather than striking down statutory limitation.
(b) Ramphal and Ors. Vs. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited and Ors.
(SLP(C) Nos.4532-4539 of 2023 decided on 13thJanuary, 2026)
The High Court drew its principal equitable rule from Ramphal: a land-loser should not be deprived of “legitimate
compensation” when close blood relatives/co-owners, having pursued remedies, received higher compensation. The Supreme
Court there noted the “heart burn” and inequity caused by differential compensation within a family for the same
acquisition. Although the Supreme Court in Ramphal moderated relief by restricting interest to a five-year period,
the High Court distinguished the present case and declined to curtail interest.
This authority was used to reinforce a co-ownership parity principle “on first principle”: where land is jointly owned,
a reference pursued at the instance of one co-owner can, in substance, justify extending enhanced compensation to the
other co-owners for the same acquired land. The High Court used it to reject a purely procedural denial when the subject
matter is a single jointly-owned holding acquired under one process.
(d) Narendra and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2017) 9 SCC 426
The Court relied on Narendra for broader governance and equality logic in compulsory acquisition: once a rate is
judicially determined as “fair compensation,” all landowners under the same notification should ordinarily receive that
benefit; strict pleading or technical objections should not defeat substantial justice. The High Court explicitly adopted
this lens to treat the dispute not as a private bargain but as a constitutional-quality state obligation arising from
eminent domain.
Though Section 28-A was not invoked in the present case, the High Court used Banwari to emphasize that Section 28-A
is a beneficial provision aimed at removing inequality in compensation for similarly situated landowners,
and must be interpreted to extend benefits rather than curtail them. The Court also extracted the rule (as stated in
Banwari) that the three-month period for Section 28-A redetermination runs from the High Court’s first appeal decision.
(f) Union of India and Others Vs. Pradeep Kumari and Others, (1995) 2 SCC 736
(and the reference to “Pradeep Kumari and Others”)
The High Court noted that Banwari reiterates the earlier position in
Union of India and Others Vs. Pradeep Kumari and Others on computation of limitation under Section 28-A.
This line of authority strengthened the Court’s understanding of Section 28-A as a remedial mechanism designed to
equalize compensation outcomes among landowners covered by the same acquisition notification.
3.2 Legal Reasoning
-
Compulsory acquisition demands heightened fairness:
The Court emphasized that acquisition under the Act flows from eminent domain; the owner is “not a willing party.”
Consequently, the compensation framework is not merely statutory arithmetic but a fairness obligation subject to judicial scrutiny.
-
Judicially determined “fair compensation” should not be fragmented within the same holding:
Once compensation has been judicially settled for land acquired under the same notification (here culminating in the
appellate rate of Rs.48,400 per bigha), denying the same to a co-owner of the same acquired land was treated as
discriminatory and unjust.
-
Technical default (non-filing under Section 18/28-A) is not decisive where it produces palpable inequality among co-owners:
The respondents argued that Kali Ram accepted the LAC award without protest and did not file a reference under Section 18,
and also did not pursue Section 28-A within limitation. The Court nevertheless held that “hyper-technical grounds”
cannot defeat legitimate compensation parity among co-owners in the same acquisition.
-
Distinguishing interest-curtailment:
While referencing Ramphal (where interest was restricted), the Court held that, on these facts, there was “no reason
to curtail the grant of interest” to the petitioners/proforma respondent No.4. The Court thus granted parity along with
statutory benefits, directing compliance within three months.
3.3 Impact
-
Co-owner parity principle strengthened:
The decision reinforces that, in joint ownership acquisitions, courts may extend the benefit of enhanced compensation
to non-litigating co-owners to prevent intra-family and intra-holding discrimination.
-
Reduced tolerance for technical defences in compensation parity disputes:
Even though the statutory design expects landowners to act within limitation under Sections 18/28-A, the judgment signals
that writ jurisdiction may be used to prevent manifestly unequal outcomes arising from the same acquisition process.
-
Administrative governance cue:
Echoing Narendra and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, the ruling nudges acquiring authorities toward
uniform application of judicially settled compensation rates, limiting repeated litigation and perceptions of arbitrariness.
-
Caveat for future cases:
The judgment is fact-sensitive: it hinges on identical acquisition, close co-ownership, and an already judicially
determined fair rate. It should not be read as a general license to bypass statutory limitation in unrelated or
dissimilar holdings.
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
- Eminent domain
- The State’s power to compulsorily acquire private property for a public purpose, with an obligation to pay fair compensation.
- Section 11 award (by LAC)
- The initial compensation determination made by the Land Acquisition Collector.
- Section 18 reference
- A statutory mechanism allowing an aggrieved landowner to seek judicial determination (by the Reference Court) of compensation.
- Section 54 appeal
- An appeal to the High Court against the Reference Court’s award.
- Section 28-A redetermination
- A beneficial provision enabling landowners who did not seek a Section 18 reference to seek the same enhanced compensation
after another landowner obtains enhancement for land covered by the same notification—subject to limitation.
- Delay and laches
- A discretionary writ doctrine: courts may refuse relief if a party approaches too late and the delay is unjustified or prejudicial.
- Statutory benefits
- Components such as solatium and interest that the statute mandates in addition to the base market value.
5. Conclusion
The High Court’s ruling crystallizes a practical equity rule in land acquisition: when joint land is acquired under the same
notification and a court has already judicially determined fair compensation, a co-owner should not be left with lesser
compensation merely due to procedural non-invocation of Section 18/28-A, especially where such denial would create
discrimination within the same jointly owned holding.
By grounding relief in Ramphal and Ors. Vs. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited and Ors.,
Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs. State of Punjab and Others, and Narendra and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others,
and by aligning with the beneficial philosophy expressed in Banwari and Others Vs. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited
and Union of India and Others Vs. Pradeep Kumari and Others, the Court prioritised substantial justice and equal treatment—core values
in compulsory acquisition—over rigid technical exclusion.