The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has reaffirmed that when compensation for land acquisition in a given notification has been enhanced by the Supreme Court for similarly situated landowners, other affected landowners must be granted identical relief by application of the principle of parity. This decision follows and applies binding authority established in “Banwari Lal and another v. State of Haryana and others” (Supreme Court, 2021), and is binding on all subordinate courts in similar land acquisition matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RFA/3674/2014 of HANSO & ORS Vs STATE OF HARYANA & ORS |
| CNR | PHHC011158682014 |
| Date of Registration | 03-05-2014 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench: MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts of Punjab & Haryana and persuasive before other courts in similar factual context. |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms and applies Supreme Court’s decision in Banwari Lal and another v. State of Haryana and others (2021) |
| Type of Law | Land Acquisition Law — statutory compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 |
| Questions of Law | Whether landowners similarly situated under the same acquisition notification are entitled to the same enhanced compensation as awarded by the Supreme Court to co-landowners, applying the principle of parity. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that once the Supreme Court has enhanced compensation for landowners in respect of a particular land acquisition notification, other similarly situated landowners whose cases arise from the same notification must, by parity, receive the same rate of compensation. The principle of parity is a binding norm where the factual context is identical. The High Court does not re-examine evidence or valuation but follows the quantum determined by superior courts under the same notification. The only exception recognized is in respect of the period covered by delay in approaching the court, for which interest may be excluded. All other statutory benefits under the Act continue to be available to such landowners. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2903 of 2021 (“Banwari Lal and another v. State of Haryana and others”, decided 14.07.2021); Premwati & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Principle of parity; binding precedent of the Supreme Court on identical acquisition notifications within the same revenue estate; established benefit of just and fair compensation to all similarly placed parties. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The land of the applicants, situated in Village Baroli/Badoli, Faridabad, was acquired under Notification dated 14.08.2008. Previous appeals in connected acquisition matters led to the Supreme Court enhancing compensation for similarly situated landowners via Banwari Lal (2021). Applicants sought the same enhanced compensation. State objected only to delayed application. The Court found their case squarely covered by Supreme Court’s judgment. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana, in cases involving the same acquisition notification or identical facts. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and authorities dealing with parity issues in land acquisition and compensation under identical statutory frameworks. |
| Follows | Banwari Lal and another v. State of Haryana and others (Supreme Court, 2021); Premwati & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms that High Courts must grant enhanced compensation to similarly situated landowners when the Supreme Court has already done so in an identical acquisition context, by applying the principle of parity.
- No need to relitigate factual valuation if the Supreme Court has settled compensation for the particular notification and area.
- Interest on compensation may be denied for the period of delay in approaching the court.
- Lawyers representing similarly placed landowners can directly rely on this to secure parity in compensation without reopening factual or evidentiary issues.
- Applies statutory and Supreme Court benefits for enhanced compensation uniformly, except as limited by delay considerations.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
The court commenced by noting that the landowners’ appeal pertained to an acquisition notification dated 14.08.2008, which was the subject of a string of litigations culminating in the Supreme Court’s judgment in Banwari Lal (2021). The Supreme Court had, there, after analysing sale instances and applicable statutory deductions and increments, awarded a revised compensation rate of Rs. 2577/- per sq. yd. for lands in Village Baroli/Badoli. The High Court reasoned that, by established doctrine of parity and following binding precedent, it was compelled to extend the same compensation rate and statutory benefits to all similarly situated landowners involved in identical notifications, unless distinguishable on facts (which was not the case here). The only modification permitted concerned exclusion of interest for the period of delay in approaching the High Court. Previous judgments in the appeals’ history and explicit directions from the Supreme Court were cited and followed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Applicants/Landowners):
- Their land was acquired under the same notification as in Banwari Lal (2021).
- Supreme Court had already enhanced compensation for similarly situated landowners.
- Sought parity in compensation, both in quantum and benefits.
Respondent (State of Haryana):
- Did not oppose parity in principle.
- Objected only to the delay (of 7 years, 2 months, and 6 days) in the application after the Supreme Court’s 2018 order.
Factual Background
The land of the appellants in Village Baroli/Badoli, District Faridabad, was acquired by the State of Haryana under Section 4 notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 14.08.2008. Earlier, connected appeals concerning this notification were finally adjudicated by the Supreme Court in Banwari Lal (2021), which raised compensation to Rs. 2577/- per sq. yd. The present appellants sought identical relief. The State raised an objection only as regards procedural delay.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment dealt with provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, focusing on Section 4 (notification of acquisition) and statutory provisions governing award of compensation, interest, and benefits. The Court did not reinterpret statutory provisions but directly applied the Supreme Court’s quantification of fair market price and development charge deduction. Statutory benefits awarded by the High Court in prior judgments remained undisturbed, save for exclusion of interest during the delay period.
Procedural Innovations
- The court condoned a significant delay in refiling the application, showing procedural flexibility in land compensation matters.
- Legal representatives of deceased appellants were duly impleaded prior to final disposal, ensuring continuation of cause in representative capacity.
- The prior High Court order was recalled as a matter of course to facilitate disposal in line with Supreme Court directions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The High Court strictly followed the binding precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in Banwari Lal and another v. State of Haryana and others (2021).