The Punjab & Haryana High Court has affirmed that a landowner who did not file a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is still entitled to the same compensation awarded to co-sharers who did, provided they hold a common interest in the acquired land. This ruling aligns with the Supreme Court’s recent precedent in Ramphal & Ors. v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, reinforcing the principle of equitable treatment among co-owners.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Anjuli, is a co-sharer in agricultural land acquired by the State of Haryana for industrial development. While several co-sharers filed objections under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, leading to an award of compensation, the petitioner did not file any such reference. Despite being a joint owner of the same parcel, she was denied compensation on the ground that she had not invoked the statutory mechanism under Section 18. She subsequently filed an execution petition seeking payment of the same compensation awarded to her co-sharers, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, on 13.08.2025.
Key Facts
- The acquired land was used for forming industrial sites and allotted to beneficiaries under State rules
- Multiple co-sharers filed references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, resulting in a compensation award
- The petitioner, as a co-sharer, did not file a Section 18 reference or objection
- The executing court dismissed her execution petition solely on the ground of non-filing of Section 18 reference
- The petitioner filed a revision petition before the High Court on 15.12.2025
- The revision petition was filed 118 days after the impugned order, prompting a condonation of delay application
Procedural History
- 13.08.2025: Additional District Judge, Rohtak, dismissed execution petition (Annexure P-1)
- 15.12.2025: Revision petition filed before Punjab & Haryana High Court
- 12.03.2026: Application for condonation of delay (CM-5224-CII-2026) heard and allowed
- 13.01.2026: Supreme Court delivered judgment in Ramphal & Ors. v. Haryana SIDC (Civil Appeal Nos. 391-398 of 2026)
- 12.03.2026: High Court delivered judgment in present revision petition
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) setting aside of the executing court’s order dated 13.08.2025; (2) direction to pay compensation equivalent to that awarded to co-sharers; (3) statutory interest and consequential benefits as per Ramphal; and (4) compliance within timelines prescribed by the Supreme Court.
The Legal Issue
Can a co-sharer in acquired land claim the same compensation awarded to other co-sharers under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, even if she did not herself file a reference under that section?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramphal & Ors. v. Haryana SIDC, arguing that co-ownership of land creates an equitable entitlement to uniform compensation. It was contended that denying compensation on procedural grounds - failure to file a Section 18 reference - violates the principle of equality and amounts to arbitrary discrimination among co-sharers holding identical interests. The petitioner had no obligation to duplicate litigation already undertaken by co-owners.
For the Respondent
The State, through the DAG, did not contest the petitioner’s claim on merits. The State accepted notice and raised no objection to the prayer, implicitly acknowledging the binding nature of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramphal. The State’s silence was treated as non-resistance to the petitioner’s legal position.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the impugned order and found it legally unsustainable. The executing court had dismissed the petition solely on the ground that the petitioner had not filed a Section 18 reference, without considering her status as a co-sharer or the binding precedent of the Supreme Court.
"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."
The Court emphasized that the Supreme Court in Ramphal had unequivocally held that co-sharers are entitled to the same compensation as those who filed references, regardless of whether they individually invoked Section 18. The Court noted that the State, as an instrumentality, had benefited from the acquisition and could not deny equitable relief to co-owners on technical grounds.
The Court further relied on Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Ramphal, which mandated that compensation be computed expeditiously within three months and disbursed within another three months, with interest at 9% per annum if deadlines are breached. The Court held that these directives are binding on all executing authorities and apply to all co-sharers, irrespective of procedural posture.
The dismissal of the execution petition on the sole ground of non-filing of Section 18 reference was held to be contrary to the settled law and the equitable principles underlying land acquisition jurisprudence.
The Verdict
The revision petition was allowed. The order dated 13.08.2025 of the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, was set aside. The matter was remanded to the executing court to determine the petitioner’s entitlement to compensation on par with her co-sharers, in accordance with the Ramphal judgment. The compensation amount, along with statutory benefits and interest, must be disbursed within three months of the determination, and if delayed beyond that, interest at 9% per annum shall accrue from the date of determination. All pending applications stand disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Co-Sharers Cannot Be Penalized for Procedural Omissions
- Practitioners must now argue that failure to file a Section 18 reference does not extinguish a co-sharer’s right to equal compensation
- Execution petitions by non-filing co-sharers are maintainable if the award to others is established
- Courts must examine substantive ownership, not just procedural compliance
Supreme Court’s Ramphal Judgment Is Binding on All Executing Courts
- All land acquisition authorities must apply Ramphal uniformly to all co-owners, regardless of litigation participation
- The three-month timelines for determination and disbursement are mandatory
- Non-compliance triggers automatic 9% interest liability on the State
Compensation Equity Overrides Technical Barriers
- The doctrine of equitable ownership trumps rigid procedural requirements in land acquisition
- Courts must interpret the Act to prevent unjust enrichment of the State at the expense of co-owners
- Legal notices and execution applications by co-sharers should be treated as valid claims if supported by title documents
