Back
Brothers' Shared Land, Shared Fate: Himachal HC Ensures Equal Compensation in Acquisition Saga
In a ruling emphasizing equity over technicalities, the has directed the to pay enhanced compensation to the legal heirs of a deceased co-owner whose land was acquired for the Ghanvi Hydel Power Project. A division bench of Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi allowed the filed by Sohan Lal (Deceased) through LRs. against the and Others , holding that denying parity to co-owners would be "a ."
From Joint Ownership to Divided Fortunes
The dispute traces back to , when land jointly owned by brothers Sh. Bahu Ram and Sh. Kali Ram in Village Ghanvi, Rampur Busahr, was notified for acquisition under , for the Ghanvi Hydel Power Project. The awarded compensation on —roughly classified by land type, totaling Rs.1,35,671 for Bahu Ram and Rs.1,35,672 for Kali Ram.
Bahu Ram, dissatisfied, filed a reference under along with 15 other owners (No.19-R/4 of 1997). The , enhanced it to Rs.88,000 per bigha on , ignoring classifications. The appealed under (RFA No.112 of 2003), and on , the High Court reduced it to Rs.48,400 per bigha—still higher than the LAC's rate.
Kali Ram, however, accepted the LAC award without protest, filing no reference. After his passing, heirs like the petitioners (Sohan Lal's LRs and proforma respondent No.4) sought parity during the appeal via CMP No.511 of 2006, claiming the reference covered joint land. This was dismissed on , as misconceived. No application followed within time (three months from the High Court judgment, per Supreme Court precedents). The came in .
Petitioners' Plea: Justice Demands Parity
The petitioners argued that joint ownership meant Bahu Ram's reference benefited all co-owners. Denying Kali Ram's share at Rs.48,400 per bigha—despite blood ties and same notification—violated fairness. They invoked and urged quashing Sections 18/28A limitations (later narrowed to compensation only, post a coordinate bench upholding vires).
Respondents' Defense: Procedure Over Equity
and others countered with delay/ (petition filed two years post-2008 judgment), alternative remedies (no /28A pursued), and acceptance of LAC award sans protest. Compensation couldn't bypass the Act's procedures, they insisted, admitting petitioners' heir status but rejecting claims .
Fairness in : Court's Guiding Light
Drawing from Supreme Court wisdom, the bench prioritized "" in compulsory acquisitions. In Ramphal v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (SLP(C) Nos.4532-4539/2023, ), the SC held land losers can't be deprived when relatives get higher rates, limiting interest to five years. Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. State of Punjab (2003) 1 SCC 526 affirmed co-owners' entitlement to benefits from one another's references.
The court invoked Narendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017) 9 SCC 426 for "": once judicially fixed, fair compensation must benefit all under the same notification, avoiding discrimination. Even —untimely here—was deemed beneficial for the inarticulate ( Banwari v. Haryana State Industrial 2024 SCC Online SC 3685; Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari 1995 2 SCC 736).
Rejecting curtailment despite missed deadlines, akin to Ramphal , the bench ruled: technicalities can't deny co-owner parity.
Key Observations Straight from the Bench
"Once a fair compensation has been judicially determined, then it is an that all the landowners whose lands have been acquired should get the same benefit. Discrimination in grant of compensation on technical grounds needs to be avoided..."
"...a land loser cannot be deprived of his legitimate compensation to which he is entitled, more so when his blood relatives, who have pursued remedies available to them under law, have received a higher compensation."
"In the case at hand... there arises no reason to curtail the grant of interest in favour of the petitioners and proforma respondent No. 4 as has been done by the apex court in Ramphal’s case..."
Victory for Equity: Directions Issued
The petition stands allowed. Respondents must pay Rs.48,400 per bigha plus statutory benefits to Kali Ram's successors within three months. This reinforces uniformity in acquisitions, potentially easing claims for overlooked co-owners while signaling limits on endless delays. As echoed in coverage by legal portals, it underscores: in , fairness isn't optional.
