Land Acquired Under Same Notification Warrants Equal Compensation; Denying Benefit on 'Co-owner' Status is Discriminatory: Himachal Pradesh High Court - 2025-09-09

HP High Court Upholds Parity in Land Acquisition, Quashes State's "Discriminatory" Order

Shimla, HP – In a significant ruling on the principles of equity and fair compensation in land acquisition cases, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed a decision by the State authorities that denied enhanced compensation to a group of landowners. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel held that landowners whose properties are acquired under the same notification are entitled to the same judicially determined compensation, and they cannot be discriminated against on arbitrary grounds such as not being "co-owners" of other successful litigants.

The court allowed the petition filed by Vishwa Nath Sharma and others, directing the State to re-determine their compensation in line with a 2016 Supreme Court judgment that had benefited other landowners from the same acquisition.

Background of the Case

The case originates from the acquisition of land in 1993 for the construction of a Stadium-cum-Helipad at Rohru, District Shimla. The petitioners' land was acquired under the same notification as that of other landowners. While the government took possession of the land in July 1984, the compensation award was passed much later in December 1995.

Some of the affected landowners challenged the compensation amount and were eventually granted enhanced compensation by the District Judge. The petitioners, who had not initially filed a reference, later sought similar benefits under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which allows for the re-determination of compensation for those who did not seek a reference, based on a court's award for land from the same notification.

The matter escalated to the Supreme Court, which, in a judgment dated March 9, 2016, granted other landowners damages at a rate of 15% per annum on the market value from the date of dispossession (1984) to the date of the notification (1993). The petitioners, being similarly situated, sought the same benefit, but their application was dismissed by the Collector on January 17, 2023.

Arguments Presented

The petitioners argued that the State's refusal to grant them the same compensation was illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They pointed out that their land was acquired under the exact same notification as those who received the benefit from the Supreme Court. They further highlighted that the State had already extended this benefit to other similarly situated landowners who were also not parties before the Supreme Court, making the denial to the petitioners even more unjustifiable.

The State , represented by the Additional Advocate General, defended the Collector's decision. They contended that the petitioners were not entitled to the enhanced compensation because they were not "co-owners" of the land belonging to the parties in the Supreme Court case. This was the primary reason cited for the rejection of their claim.

Court's Reasoning and Legal Principles

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel found the State's position to be legally untenable and discriminatory. The court noted the undisputed fact that the petitioners' land was acquired for the same project and under the same notification as the land of those who benefited from the 2016 Supreme Court judgment.

The High Court dismantled the State's core argument, stating:

“This Court is of the considered view that this stand of the State is not justified in law... it is not understood as to how the State has given benefit to the persons mentioned in Annexure R/3... because it is not the case of the respondents-State that those persons were co-owners alongwith the beneficiary land owners of the 2016, verdict passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”

The judgment emphasized the principle of equity embedded in Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Narendra and Others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2017) , the court reinforced that the objective of the law is to provide fair compensation to all landowners, especially those who may not have the means to approach the courts.

Quoting the Supreme Court, Justice Goel reiterated:

“Once a particular rate of compensation is judicially determined, which becomes a fair compensation, benefit thereof is to be given even to those who could not approach the court... Not only it is an aspect of good governance, failing to do so would also amount to discrimination…”

The High Court concluded that denying the petitioners the enhanced compensation on such technical grounds was arbitrary and unlawful.

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned order of the Collector dated January 17, 2023. The respondents were directed to re-determine the compensation payable to the petitioners in accordance with the 2016 Supreme Court judgment, ensuring they receive the same benefits as other landowners whose properties were acquired under the same notification.