Fairly Determined Compensation For Land Acquisition Must Also Be Given To Land Owners Who Didn't Approach Court: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that once a fair rate of compensation for land acquisition has been decided, its benefit must be extended to all landowners affected by the same acquisition.

The Court held that denying such benefits to some landowners merely because they did not approach the court amounts to discrimination.

Rejecting the State's reasoning, the Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Once a particular rate of compensation is judicially determined which can become a fair compensation, benefit thereof is to be given even to those who could not approach the Court, the act of the respondents of not giving this benefit to the petitioners is arbitrary, discriminatory and not sustainable in the eyes of law”.

In 1993, the land of the petitioners was acquired for the construction of a Stadium-cum-Helipad at Rohru, District Shimla and the compensation award was passed in 1995. Some land owners challenged the award by filing references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and were awarded compensation.

However, the petitioners did not file any Reference but later applied under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, which allows re-determination of compensation on the basis of earlier court awards.

Their claim was initially accepted in 2011, and the compensation was fixed at ₹64.53 lakh, but later reviewed and reduced to ₹54.23 lakh in 2012 without notice to them.

Aggrieved, some landowners approached the Supreme Court, which allowed the compensation by way of damages @15% per annum on the market value of the land from 1984 to 1993.

The petitioners contended that since their land was acquired under the same notification, they were entitled to the same benefit. However, their application was dismissed by the Land Acquisition Collector in 2023.

In response, the state contended that the petitioners were not entitled as they were neither co-owners nor in any other way interested with the land of the parties who had approached the Supreme Court.

Rejecting the State's contention, the court remarked that “when benefit has been given to other land owners whose land was acquired along with the land owners in whose cases orders were passed by the Supreme Court, the petitioners obviously cannot be discriminated.”

Further, the Court noted that Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is based on the principle of equity, which allows re-determination of compensation based on earlier court awards.

Thus, the Court directed the state to re-determine the compensation to be paid to the petitioner.

Case Name: Vishwa Nath Sharma & others v/s State of H.P. & Others.

Case No.: CWP No. 9848 of 2023

Date of Decision: 09.09.2025

For the Petitioner: Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General

Click Here To Read/Download Order