The Punjab and Haryana High Court has affirmed that landowners who did not file objections under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are still entitled to compensation on par with their co-sharers, if those co-sharers received enhanced awards. This ruling reinforces the principle of equitable treatment among co-owners in acquisition proceedings, aligning with the Supreme Court’s recent guidance in Ramphal & Ors. v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Gajraj Singh, is a co-sharer in agricultural land acquired by the State of Haryana for industrial development. While other co-sharers filed references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and obtained enhanced compensation awards, the petitioner did not file any such reference. Despite this, he later filed an execution petition seeking payment of the same compensation amount awarded to his co-sharers. The executing court dismissed his petition on the sole ground that he had not invoked Section 18 or Section 28-A of the Act.
Key Facts
- The acquired land was notified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- Multiple co-sharers filed references under Section 18 of the Act
- The Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation to those co-sharers
- The petitioner did not file any objection or reference under Section 18 or Section 28-A
- The petitioner filed an execution petition seeking payment of the same compensation amount as awarded to co-sharers
- The executing court dismissed the petition on 02.05.2025, holding that absence of a Section 18 reference barred relief
Procedural History
- Date of acquisition notification: Not specified in judgment
- Date of award to co-sharers: Not specified, but referenced as final
- 02.05.2025: Execution petition dismissed by Additional District Judge, Gurugram
- 24.03.2026: Present revision petition heard and decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that as a co-sharer in the same parcel of land, he was entitled to the same compensation as his co-sharers who obtained enhanced awards through Section 18 references. He argued that the denial of equal compensation on procedural grounds violated the principle of equality and equity under Article 14 of the Constitution.
For the Respondents
The State of Haryana and HUDA contended that the petitioner’s failure to invoke Section 18 or Section 28-A of the Act rendered him ineligible to claim the enhanced compensation awarded to others. They argued that the execution petition was not maintainable without a prior adjudication of his claim under the statutory framework.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Setting aside of the order dated 02.05.2025 dismissing his execution petition
- Direction to the executing court to compute and release compensation equal to that awarded to his co-sharers
- Payment of statutory interest and consequential benefits as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramphal’s case
The Legal Issue
Can a co-sharer in acquired land, who did not file a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claim compensation equal to that awarded to other co-sharers who did file such references?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramphal & Ors. v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (Civil Appeal Nos. 391-398 of 2026), which held that co-sharers are entitled to equal compensation regardless of whether they filed a Section 18 reference. He argued that the executing court’s dismissal on procedural grounds ignored the substantive right to equitable treatment under the Act and the constitutional guarantee of equality.
For the Respondent
The respondents maintained that the statutory mechanism under Section 18 is mandatory for determining enhanced compensation. They contended that without a reference, the petitioner’s claim remained unadjudicated and could not be enforced through execution. They argued that allowing such claims would undermine the procedural integrity of the acquisition process.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ramphal & Ors. v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, delivered on 13.01.2026, which directly addressed the rights of co-sharers in land acquisition proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the principle of equality demands that co-sharers in the same land parcel receive equal compensation, irrespective of whether they individually filed references under Section 18 or Section 28-A.
"We are of the considered view that apart from the compensation, the appellants would be entitled to the interest for a period of five years to be reckoned from today backwards and we make it explicitly clear that the appellants are not entitled for any interest for any other period. We would also hasten to add that the appellants would be entitled to all other consequential benefits which flow from award of compensation..."
The High Court noted that the executing court’s dismissal of the petition was based on a misreading of the law. The absence of a Section 18 reference does not extinguish a co-sharer’s right to equal compensation when others in the same landholding have received it. The Court emphasized that the State, as an instrumentality, cannot benefit from the acquisition while denying equitable treatment to co-owners who merely failed to follow a procedural step.
The Court further held that the Ramphal judgment is binding and applies to all pending and future cases involving co-sharers. The executing court is obligated to compute the petitioner’s entitlement based on the final award granted to his co-sharers, including statutory interest and consequential benefits.
The Verdict
The revision petition was allowed. The order dated 02.05.2025 dismissing the execution petition was set aside. The executing court was directed to determine the petitioner’s compensation amount equal to that awarded to his co-sharers, including statutory interest and consequential benefits as per Ramphal’s case. The compensation and interest must be disbursed within three months of the determination, and if delayed, interest at 9% per annum shall accrue from the date of determination. All pending applications are disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Equal Compensation Is a Substantive Right
- Practitioners must now argue that co-sharer entitlement to equal compensation is not contingent on filing a Section 18 reference
- The absence of a reference cannot be used to deny substantive rights under Article 14
- Execution petitions based on co-sharer awards are maintainable even without prior adjudication
Execution Courts Must Apply Ramphal Retroactively
- All executing courts must treat Ramphal as binding precedent in pending and future cases
- Compensation must be recalculated to include interest and consequential benefits as specified
- Delays in payment trigger 9% interest from the date of determination, not from the date of award
Procedural Non-Compliance Does Not Bar Equity
- Landowners who missed statutory deadlines retain rights if co-sharers received enhanced awards
- Courts must prioritize substantive justice over technical compliance in land acquisition matters
- Legal notices and execution applications should be framed to invoke Ramphal as controlling authority
