In a significant ruling on land acquisition compensation, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that co-owners cannot be denied equal compensation merely due to procedural lapses. The Court emphasized that fairness must prevail over technicalities when land is acquired by the State.
Background of the Case
The case, Sohan Lal (Deceased) through LRs vs HP Electricity Board and Others (CWP No. 8104 of 2010), arose from the acquisition of land in Village Ghanvi for the Ghanvi Hydel Power Project.
The land originally belonged jointly to two brothers, Bahu Ram and Kali Ram. In 1991, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation based on land classification. While Bahu Ram challenged the award and secured enhanced compensation through legal proceedings, Kali Ram did not pursue remedies under the Land Acquisition Act.
Read also:- Chhattisgarh HC: No Permission Needed for Prayer at Home, Police Notices Quashed in Christian Prayer Case
Later, Kali Ram’s legal heirs approached the High Court, seeking the same enhanced compensation granted to their co-owner relative.
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi, closely examined whether compensation could be denied solely because one co-owner did not challenge the original award.
The Court noted that land acquisition is not a voluntary transaction.
“Compensation required to be paid for lands acquired for public purpose should be fair and just,” the bench observed.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court emphasized that once fair compensation is judicially determined for one co-owner, denying the same to another would lead to discrimination.
Read also:- Rajasthan HC Clears JDA’s Move to Sack Assistant Advocates, Says No Right to Continue
“The benefit of enhanced compensation cannot be denied on hyper-technical grounds,” the bench stated, underscoring that equality among co-owners must be maintained.
The Court also referred to recent Supreme Court rulings, which highlighted that denying similar benefits to similarly placed landowners could create unjust disparities and “heart burn” among family members.
A key issue before the Court was whether the petitioners could claim enhanced compensation despite not invoking remedies under Sections 18 or 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act within the prescribed time.
The respondents argued that the petition was delayed and not maintainable due to failure to follow statutory procedures.
However, the Court took a broader view, focusing on substantive justice rather than procedural compliance alone.
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court held that the petitioners are entitled to the same compensation as awarded to their co-owner, Bahu Ram.
The bench ruled that denying such benefit would be unjust and contrary to the principles of fair compensation in compulsory land acquisition.
“The petitioners… are legitimately entitled to compensation as has been awarded… and the same cannot be denied… on hyper-technical grounds,” the Court concluded.
The Court directed the authorities to complete the necessary process and grant the compensation within three months.
Case Details
Case Title: Sohan Lal (Deceased) through LRs vs HP Electricity Board and Others
Case Number: CWP No. 8104 of 2010
Judges: Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Justice Bipin Chander Negi
Decision Date: 18 March 2026
Counsels:
- Petitioners: Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Diwan Singh Negi
- Respondents: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohit Sankhyan; Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India
