The Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that a proforma respondent in a Supreme Court appeal is legally entitled to the benefit of an enhanced compensation award granted to co-parties, even if they did not personally file the appeal. This ruling reinforces the principle of equitable relief under Order XLI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure in land acquisition matters.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from the acquisition of agricultural land owned by Dhan Singh (now deceased) through the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP), formerly known as Haryana Urban Development Authority. The land, located in the revenue estate of Village Palwal, Tehsil & District Palwal, was acquired for the development of Sector-12, Palwal under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Key Facts
- The acquisition was initiated through notifications dated 15.06.2006 (Section 4) and 14.06.2007 (Section 6)
- The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) issued Award No. 7 dated 09.06.2009, fixing market value at Rs. 16,00,000 per acre
- Dhan Singh and other landowners filed objections under Section 18 of the 1894 Act
- The Reference Court, by award dated 16.03.2013, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 24,48,396 per acre (Rs. 505.87 per square yard)
- Dhan Singh and others filed RFA No. 3383 of 2014 challenging the Reference Court’s award
- The High Court dismissed RFA No. 3383 of 2014 by order dated 10.12.2025
- Other landowners in RFA No. 3383 of 2014 filed SLP (C) No. 28722 of 2016 before the Supreme Court
- Dhan Singh was impleaded as a proforma respondent in SLP (C) No. 28722 of 2016
- The Supreme Court, by order dated 04.01.2024, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 640 per square yard
- Dhan Singh filed an execution application seeking benefit of the enhanced rate
- The Executing Court, by order dated 03.10.2025, directed HSVP to release the enhanced compensation and statutory benefits
Procedural History
- 15.06.2006: Section 4 notification issued for land acquisition
- 14.06.2007: Section 6 notification issued
- 09.06.2009: LAC Award No. 7 issued at Rs. 16,00,000 per acre
- 16.03.2013: Reference Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 24,48,396 per acre
- 10.12.2025: High Court dismissed RFA No. 3383 of 2014
- 04.01.2024: Supreme Court allowed SLP (C) No. 28722 of 2016, enhancing compensation to Rs. 640 per square yard
- 03.10.2025: Executing Court directed release of enhanced compensation to Dhan Singh
- 20.04.2026: Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed Civil Revision No. 3334 of 2026
Relief Sought
The petitioner, HSVP, sought to set aside the Executing Court’s order dated 03.10.2025 and to restrain payment of enhanced compensation to Dhan Singh’s legal representatives on the ground that he was only a proforma respondent in the Supreme Court appeal and had not independently pursued the remedy.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a proforma respondent in a Supreme Court appeal under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is entitled to the benefit of an enhanced compensation award granted to co-parties under Order XLI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that since Dhan Singh did not file the SLP before the Supreme Court, he could not claim the benefit of the enhanced compensation awarded therein. It was argued that Order XLI Rule 4 applies only when a party is a formal appellant or respondent in the appeal, and not when merely impleaded as a proforma party without active participation. Reliance was placed on the principle that rights must be actively pursued and cannot be vicariously claimed.
For the Respondent
The respondents argued that Dhan Singh was a joint owner of the land and had filed a joint reference petition under Section 18 of the 1894 Act with other landowners. The Supreme Court’s order in SLP (C) No. 28722 of 2016 was passed in a consolidated matter where all co-owners were bound by the outcome. As a proforma respondent, he was still a party to the proceeding and entitled to the benefit of the judgment under Order XLI Rule 4 CPC, which mandates that a decree in favor of one joint claimant enures to the benefit of all.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the original claim and the procedural posture of the parties. It noted that Dhan Singh had filed a joint application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with other landowners. The Reference Court had passed a common award in respect of all joint claimants. The subsequent appeal and the Supreme Court appeal were filed by some of the co-owners, but Dhan Singh was formally impleaded as a proforma respondent.
The Court relied on its own earlier decision in RFA No. 832 of 2022, which held that when a joint reference petition is filed and a common judgment is passed, the benefit of any subsequent appellate or revisional order enures to all joint owners, even if one of them is not an active appellant or respondent.
"Once a joint reference petition was filed by all the four brothers, which was decided by the Reference Court by a common judgment, then, the appeal, even if filed by only three brothers, shall enure to the benefit of the appellant. There was a joint decree in favour of four brothers. It is not the case of the appellant that while filing the appeal by his brothers, the rights of appellant were relinquished or surrendered. In such a situation, in terms of Order XLI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant shall be deemed to be entitled to the same amount as payable to the remaining three brothers..."
The Court emphasized that Order XLI Rule 4 CPC is designed to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and ensure uniformity in the adjudication of joint rights. The fact that Dhan Singh was not an active appellant in the SLP did not extinguish his interest in the joint claim. His impleadment as a proforma respondent was sufficient to bind him to the outcome and entitle him to its benefits.
The Court further held that the Executing Court was correct in directing the release of enhanced compensation, as the Supreme Court’s order was final and binding on all parties to the original joint claim.
The Verdict
The revision petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the order dated 03.10.2025 of the Additional District Judge, Palwal, directing the petitioner to release enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 640 per square yard, along with statutory benefits, to the legal representatives of Dhan Singh. The Court directed the Executing Court to proceed with the release of compensation in accordance with the Supreme Court’s order dated 04.01.2024 in SLP (C) No. 28722 of 2016. All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Joint Claims Bind All Parties
- Practitioners must treat joint claimants in land acquisition proceedings as a single unit for purposes of appellate relief
- Even if one co-owner does not file an appeal, their rights are preserved if they were part of the original joint reference
- Proforma impleadment is sufficient to trigger the benefit of a favorable judgment under Order XLI Rule 4 CPC
Execution of Enhanced Awards Is Mandatory
- Once a higher court enhances compensation in a consolidated proceeding, the award must be extended to all original joint claimants
- The executing court has no discretion to deny such benefits on technical grounds of non-participation
- Delay in filing execution applications does not defeat entitlement if the underlying judgment is binding
Proforma Status Does Not Equal Exclusion
- Being a proforma respondent is not a legal barrier to claiming benefits
- Courts must look at the substance of the claim, not the form of party designation
- This principle applies equally to compensation, solatium, interest, and other statutory dues under the 1894 Act
