Benefit Of Fairly Determined Compensation For Land Acquisition To Be Also Given To Land Owners Who Didn't Approach Court: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court while granting a landlord benefit of the fairly determined compensation as decided by the Supreme Court, has held that the benefit extends to those too who didn't approach the Court.

The Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed, "Therefore, in light of the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself has been pleased to hold 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."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Raman Sethi, while the Respondent was represented by Additional Advocate General Rajpal Thakur.

Facts of the Case

As per the Petitioners, their land was acquired for the construction of Stadium-cum-Helipad at Rohru, District Shimla by issuance of a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The possession of the land was taken over by the Government in 1984 and compensation award was passed in 1985.

According to the Petitioners, certain Land Owners preferred References under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, however, the Petitioners did not prefer any Reference. The References preferred by some other land owners were decided by the District Judge in 1997 and the compensation was enhanced to ₹23,440/- per biswa. The Award passed by the District Judge was assailed by the State Government by way of Regular First Appeal before the High Court. During the pendency of these Appeals, Petitioners filed Application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. To cut the controversy short, the Application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act was allowed by the Collector in 2011 pursuant to the directions passed by Court which assessed the amount of compensation payable to the Petitioners to the tune of ₹64,53,599.

 As per the Petitioners, in 2012, said amount of ₹64,53,599/- was reviewed at the back of the Petitioners and reduced to ₹54,23,039/-. In the interregnum, some of the land owners approached the Supreme Court of India also, feeling aggrieved by the judgments passed by this Court in the Regular First Appeal preferred by the State and the Court allowed compensation by way of damages @15% per annum on the market value of the land w.e.f. July 01, 1984, i.e. the date when the land owners were dispossessed, till September 02, 1993, i.e. the date of publication of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

The grievance of the Petitioners is that despite the fact that the Petitioners are also entitled for the compensation in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court as the land of the Petitioners was acquired vide same Notification, in terms thereof, the land of those persons who were before the Supreme Court was acquired, yet the Petitioners are being discriminated and in terms of the impugned order, the Application filed by the Petitioners for the grant of the said enhanced amount to them has been arbitrarily dismissed by the Collector.

Reasoning By Court 

The Court stated that in view of the State as the Petitioners are not co-owners of the beneficiary land owners of the 2016 orders passed by the Supreme Court of India, therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court

"This Court is of the considered view that this stand of the State is not justified in law. Without dwelling on any other aspect of the matter, if this is the stand of the State that the petitioners are not entitled for the benefit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, because they are not the co-owners of the beneficiary land owners of the 2016 orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then it is not understood as to how the State has given benefit to the persons mentioned in Annexure R/3 appended with the application referred to hereinabove, 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 Court observed.

The Court also ruled that the principle of redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court, as is culled out in Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is based on larger principle of equity that wherein the land owners have been deprived of their land as a result of compulsory acquisition, then they should be given best compensation for their land, of course subject to the riders contained in the Land Acquisition Act.

"The rights which thus accrued upon a land owner by virtue of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, are not sub-servant to the kind of conditions as have been culled out in the impugned order by the Collector", the Court stated.

The Petition was accordingly disposed of.

Cause Title: Vishwa Nath Sharma & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others (2025:HHC:30828)

Click here to read/ download Order