Co-sharers Entitled To Same Land Compensation As Other Owners Even If No Reference Filed Under Section 18 Or 28-A: Punjab & Haryana HC

"The appellants would be entitled to all other consequential benefits which flow from award of compensation and the respondent(s) authorities shall compute the compensation as has been determined by the award passed under Section 18 of the Act." – Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a co-sharer in acquired land is entitled to receive compensation at par with other co-owners, even if they did not independently file a reference under Section 18 or Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

A single-judge bench of Justice Harkesh Manuja, in a ruling dated March 20, 2026, observed that the "scales have to be balanced" between the state and landowners, ensuring that those holding interest in the same land parcel are not treated disparately regarding the final compensation amount.

The petitioner, a landowner, had moved the Executing Court seeking compensation for her acquired land in the same terms as the award or judgment passed in favor of other co-sharers. However, the Court of the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, acting as the Executing Court, dismissed her petition on December 23, 2025. The dismissal was based on the technical ground that the petitioner had failed to file any objections or references under the statutory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

The primary legal question before the Court was whether a co-sharer is entitled to parity in land compensation despite not having preferred a reference under Section 18 or Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court also sought to determine the appropriate entitlement to interest and the timeframe for the disbursement of such substituted compensation.

In its analysis, the High Court noted that the Executing Court had erred by dismissing the petition "merely on the ground" that the landowner did not choose to prefer objections. Justice Manuja pointed out that the legal landscape regarding the rights of co-sharers has been clearly defined by the Supreme Court of India. The bench relied heavily on the precedent set in Ramphal & Ors. v. Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Ors. (2026), where the apex court upheld the claims of co-sharers to similar compensation levels as their co-owners to ensure equity in land acquisition proceedings. "The aforesaid legal issue already stands decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court... wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to uphold the claims made by the co-sharers with regard to entitlement of similar amount of compensation."

Addressing the specific relief granted to such landowners, the Court highlighted that while parity in the principal compensation amount is mandatory, the entitlement to interest is subject to specific restrictions. Following the Supreme Court's mandate, the High Court observed that interest for such claimants must be restricted to a period of five years, calculated backwards from the date of the Supreme Court's decision in the Ramphal case. The bench clarified that the state, as an acquiring body and an instrumentality of the State, benefits from the utilization of land for industrial sites, and therefore, the compensation must reflect the judicial determination made under Section 18 of the Act, whether modified by the High Court or 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 further emphasized the necessity of a strict timeline for the determination and disbursement of these funds. Justice Manuja reiterated the Supreme Court’s direction that the authorities must complete the determination within three months and disburse the amount within another three months. To ensure compliance, the Court noted that any default in adhering to this timeline would attract a penal interest rate of 9% per annum from the date of determination. This mechanism serves to prevent administrative delays that could further prejudice the rights of the landowners. "In the event of time line which has been fixed by this Court is not adhered to by the respondent(s) authorities, they shall be liable to pay interest @ nine per cent (9%) on the amounts so determined."

Setting aside the impugned order of the Executing Court, the High Court remitted the matter for fresh adjudication. The Executing Court has been directed to verify if the petitioner is indeed a co-sharer in the acquired land parcels. If the status is confirmed, the authorities must release the compensation, statutory benefits, and restricted interest in accordance with the timeline and conditions stipulated in the Ramphal judgment. "The matter is remitted back to the learned Executing Court concerned for fresh adjudication and in case the petitioner(s) is/are found to be co-sharers in the acquired land parcels... the necessary amount as determined finally alongwith statutory benefits and interest thereupon be released."

The revision petition was allowed, ensuring that procedural lapses in filing individual references do not deprive a co-sharer of their substantive right to equal compensation. The ruling reinforces the principle that when the state acquires a consolidated tract of land, the compensation determined for one co-owner must logically extend to all those holding a share in the same property to prevent discriminatory outcomes.

Date of Decision: 20 March 2026