Passing Contrary Orders On Identical Land Acquisition Cases Violates Public Policy, Equal Treatment: Madhya Pradesh High Court

"Public policy of India established since beginning that all persons are to be treated equally passing two contrary orders on identical set of facts in a land acquisition proceeding is, in the considered view of this Court, in conflict with the public policy of India." Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that passing contrary orders on identical sets of facts in land acquisition proceedings conflicts with the fundamental public policy of India.

A single-judge bench of Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi observed that the State and its authorities are bound by the principle of equal treatment, setting aside a district court order that had dismissed the appellant's challenge against an arbitration award despite coordinate benches allowing identical challenges.

The dispute arose from the acquisition of land in village Khulkhurd by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for the widening of National Highway No. 3. Several adjacent landowners, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the statutory arbitrator under the National Highways Act, filed separate applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. While coordinate district courts allowed the applications of five similarly situated landowners and set aside their awards, the 11th District Judge, Indore, dismissed the present appellant's application on identical facts, prompting this appeal under Section 37 of the Act.

The primary question before the High Court was whether the district court could pass a contrary order rejecting a Section 34 application when coordinate benches had already allowed identical applications arising from the same acquisition notification. The court was also called upon to determine if such disparity in treatment by the State violated the public policy of India under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Duty Of State Entities To Disclose Facts

The court took strong exception to the conduct of the National Highways Authority of India and its counsel during the district court proceedings. It was brought to the High Court's attention that out of eight similarly situated cases challenging the arbitrator's awards, five had already been allowed by different presiding officers.

Despite the same counsel representing the NHAI across all these matters, this crucial information regarding the allowance of identical applications was suppressed from the 11th District Judge who heard the present appellant's case. The bench noted that the State has a higher burden of fairness in judicial proceedings.

"Further, significantly in all cases same counsel for National Highways Authority of India was present, thus, in all fairness, the respondent/NHAI should have informed the court about the orders passed by the other presiding officer in identical cases of same survey number for same acquisition process."

Identical Facts Warrant Identical Treatment The High Court meticulously examined the records and noted that all acquired parcels of land were situated in the exact same village of Khulkhurd, with survey numbers located in close proximity to one another. The bench emphasised that the grounds raised by the landowners challenging the inadequacy of compensation were completely identical across all the Section 34 applications.

Addressing the NHAI's argument that parity cannot be automatically drawn in land acquisition matters and that the scope of Section 37 is strictly limited, the court clarified the broader mandate of equal justice. The bench observed that treating identically situated landowners differently strikes at the very root of established legal and constitutional principles.

Public Policy Demands Equal Application Of Law Reiterating the scope of judicial interference, the court noted that the jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is akin to the jurisdiction under Section 34, allowing the court to step in when an award or order breaches the fundamental policy of Indian law. The bench firmly established that equal treatment of citizens by the State forms a core component of this public policy.

"The public policy of India established since beginning that all persons are to be treated equally passing two contrary orders on identical set of facts in a land acquisition proceeding is, in the considered view of this Court, in conflict with the public policy of India."

Relief Granted To Appellants Consequently, maintaining consistency with the relief granted to the other landowners of the same village, the High Court decided that the present matter must also be reopened. The bench noted that the other landholders whose Section 34 applications were allowed had their matters successfully sent back to the arbitrator for fresh consideration.

Ultimately, the High Court allowed the present appeals and set aside both the impugned district court order and the original arbitral award dated January 29, 2014. The appellants were granted the liberty to re-agitate their claims before the arbitrator, with a specific direction that the fresh arbitration proceedings be concluded within eight months from the date of filing the claim.

Date of Decision: 20 July 2026