#Section 18 LA Act

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that co-sharers in acquired land are entitled to the same compensation as other co-owners, even if they never filed objections under Sections 18 or 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This removes a procedural barrier for beneficiaries of land acquisition awards, ensuring equitable treatment regardless of litigation participation.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld that land compensation for coconut and palm oil trees must be based on verifiable market transactions, not speculative yield estimates, and barred the submission of new evidence after the reference court’s decision under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. This sets a critical precedent for landowners and acquisition authorities across states relying on the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, ensuring compensation is grounded in actual market data, not conjecture.

The Calcutta High Court reaffirmed that civil courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate compensation claims under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, regardless of whether notice was served. The exclusive remedy lies under Section 18, and ignorance of acquisition proceedings is no defence, reinforcing the statutory bar on civil court interference.