RFA-1908 111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA M/s Anant Hari Steel Industries State of Haryana CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) award dated cum-Reference Court, 2. landowner forming part of the revenue estate of Village to be acquired vide noti issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), respectively, followed by the award dated 16.03.1989 3. Section 18 of the Act 06.05.1994 passed by learned Reference Court at Gurugaon, in 908-1999 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: 06.02.2026 M/s Anant Hari Steel Industries Versus State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the appellant (through whatsapp video call) Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present appeal, challenge has been land to an award dated 30.08.1997 passed by learned Additional District Judge Reference Court, Gurgaon (for short ‘the Reference Court’). Briefly stating, some land owned by the appellant/ landowner forming part of the revenue estate of Village to be acquired vide notifications dated 27.08.1987 and 25.08.1988 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), respectively, followed by the award dated 16.03.1989. The appellant/ landowner did not file objections under tion 18 of the Act , however, based on an Award dated 06.05.1994 passed by learned Reference Court at Gurugaon, in ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-1908-1999 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.02.2026 …….Appellant Versus ..….Respondent HARKESH MANUJA Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the appellant (through whatsapp video call) Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. By way of present appeal, challenge has been land to an passed by learned Additional District Judge (for short ‘the Reference Court’). Briefly stating, some land owned by the appellant/ landowner forming part of the revenue estate of Village Jharsa came fications dated 27.08.1987 and 25.08.1988 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), respectively, followed by the award dated The appellant/ landowner did not file objections under , however, based on an Award dated 06.05.1994 passed by learned Reference Court at Gurugaon, in …….Appellant By way of present appeal, challenge has been land to an passed by learned Additional District Judge- Briefly stating, some land owned by the appellant/ came fications dated 27.08.1987 and 25.08.1988 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), respectively, followed by the award dated The appellant/ landowner did not file objections under , however, based on an Award dated 06.05.1994 passed by learned Reference Court at Gurugaon, in SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.11 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1908 relation to the same very acquisition Section 28 A of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector short ‘the LAC’), which by the LAC 4. reference under Section 28 learned Reference Court vide decision dated 20.08.1997 appellant(s)/landowner(s) were market value on the basis of Award dated 06.05199 produced on record as Ex.A2 appeal, appellant/ landowner determination of market value with respect to the acquisition proceedings in hand now stands re yards in Haryana, benefit of enhancement qua the acquisition of his land 5. opposed by learned State counsel. 6. through the paper 7. from Section 28 down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra 908-1999 (O&M) [2] relation to the same very acquisition Section 28 A of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector the LAC’), which was dismissed by the LAC. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant/ landowner preferred reference under Section 28-A (3) of the Act which was allowed by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 20.08.1997 appellant(s)/landowner(s) were awarded the benefit of enhanced market value on the basis of Award dated 06.05199 produced on record as Ex.A2. However, by preferring the present appellant/ landowner has put forth his grievance determination of market value with respect to the acquisition proceedings in hand now stands re in RFA No.556 of 1994, titled as Haryana, decided on 13.05.1999, therefore, of enhancement qua the acquisition of his land On the other hand, the prayer made herein has been opposed by learned State counsel. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. On a conjoint reading of the statutory scheme derived from Section 28-A of the Act, read with the by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra, reported as (2018) 11 SCC 92 ] relation to the same very acquisition, preferred application under Section 28 A of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector (for dismissed vide order dated 12.01.1996 Aggrieved thereof, the appellant/ landowner preferred A (3) of the Act which was allowed by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 20.08.1997. Th awarded the benefit of enhanced market value on the basis of Award dated 06.051994 which was . However, by preferring the present has put forth his grievance that the final determination of market value with respect to the acquisition proceedings in hand now stands re-assessed @ Rs.213/- per sq. titled as Kabul Singh Vs. State of decided on 13.05.1999, therefore, he be granted the same of enhancement qua the acquisition of his land. On the other hand, the prayer made herein has been I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone g of the statutory scheme derived A of the Act, read with the exposition of law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sing Vs. (2018) 11 SCC 92, and Banwari , preferred application under (for vide order dated 12.01.1996 Aggrieved thereof, the appellant/ landowner preferred A (3) of the Act which was allowed by the . The awarded the benefit of enhanced which was . However, by preferring the present final determination of market value with respect to the acquisition per sq. Kabul Singh Vs. State of same On the other hand, the prayer made herein has been I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone g of the statutory scheme derived xposition of law laid Bharat Sing Vs. Banwari SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.11 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1908 through LRs Vs. HSIIDC and wherein it was held that the landowners determination of compensation under Section 28 basis of the herein is entit favour along with all statutory benefits and interest including interest on solatium No.556 of 1994, titled as ‘ Relevant paragraph Nos.15 that of paras 15 and 16 of hereunder 908-1999 (O&M) [3] through LRs Vs. HSIIDC and another wherein it was held that the landowners determination of compensation under Section 28 basis of the final adjudication. Accordingly, is entitled for award of enhancement of market value along with all statutory benefits and interest including interest on solatium in terms of decision dated 13.05.1999, passed in RFA No.556 of 1994, titled as ‘Kabul Singh Vs. State of Haryana vant paragraph Nos.15-17 of Bharat Sing’s that of paras 15 and 16 of Banwari’s hereunder- “Bharat Sing’s case (supra) 15. In the case of the appellants, when their Section 28A application was decided, based on awards in LAR Nos. 123 and 129 of 1983, the very same awards were pending in appeal before the High Court. However, the Collector proceeded to consider their applicatio on 25.10.2000. Thereafter, fresh application under Section based on the judgment of the High Court dated 23.03.2009. It was this application that was held to be not maintainable, being a second application. 16. Though there is no quarrel with the principle that only a single application is maintainable, in the instant case, unfortunately, the High Court omitted to take note of the fact that the appeals on the relied on awards were pending when the ] another, reported as 2024 INSC 951 wherein it was held that the landowners were entitled to seek determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act on the . Accordingly, the appellant/ landowner led for award of enhancement of market value in along with all statutory benefits and interest including interest in terms of decision dated 13.05.1999, passed in RFA Kabul Singh Vs. State of Haryana Bharat Sing’s case (supra) and Banwari’s case (supra), are reproduced case (supra) In the case of the appellants, when their Section 28A application was decided, based on awards in LAR Nos. 123 and 129 of 1983, the very same awards were pending in appeal before the High Court. However, the Collector proceeded to consider their application and decided the same on 25.10.2000. Thereafter, fresh application 28A was filed on 27.05.2009 based on the judgment of the High Court dated 23.03.2009. It was this application that was held to be not maintainable, being a second Though there is no quarrel with the principle that only a single application is maintainable, in the instant case, unfortunately, the High Court omitted to take note of the fact that the appeals on the relied on awards were pending when the 2024 INSC 951, re- A of the Act on the the appellant/ landowner in its along with all statutory benefits and interest including interest in terms of decision dated 13.05.1999, passed in RFA Kabul Singh Vs. State of Haryana’. case (supra) and case (supra), are reproduced In the case of the appellants, when their Section 28A application was decided, based on awards in LAR Nos. 123 and 129 of 1983, the very same awards were pending in appeal before the High Court. However, the Collector proceeded to n and decided the same on 25.10.2000. Thereafter, fresh application was filed on 27.05.2009 based on the judgment of the High Court dated 23.03.2009. It was this application that was held to be not maintainable, being a second Though there is no quarrel with the principle that only a single application is maintainable, in the instant case, unfortunately, the High Court omitted to take note of the fact that the appeals on the relied on awards were pending when the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.11 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1908 908-1999 (O&M) [4] Section 28A application was decided. That is the special and distinctive factual position in the instant case. It must also be kept in mind that Section 28A is a beneficial provision. 17. The Section 28A based on the awards in LAR Nos. of 1983 was decided on 25.10.2000 when the appeals therefrom were pending. The Collector ought to have kept the application pending till the appeals were decided on 23.03.2009. On principle, the High Court is correct and justified in the view taken there cannot be successive applications under Section 28A in view of Pradeep Kumari (supra). But that is not the point arising for consideration here. No doubt, the second application dated 27.05.2009 for re court judgment is not maintainable. However, since the Collector is also at fault in deciding the application when the matter was pending in appeal, we are of the view that facts of the instant case, the application d 31.12.1992 should be considered afresh. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as follows. The Land Acquisition Collector is directed to consider afresh the Section 28A application dated 31.12.1992 and pass orders in the light of the judgment of the High Court dated 23.03.2009 in First Appeal Nos.569 and 570 of 1997 on the file of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. For enabling the Collector to pass orders as above, the order dated 25.10.2000 is set aside. However, the amounts already paid ] application was decided. That is the special and distinctive factual position in the instant case. It must also be kept in mind that is a beneficial provision. 28A application dated 31.12.1992 based on the awards in LAR Nos. 123 and 129 of 1983 was decided on 25.10.2000 when the appeals therefrom were pending. The Collector ought to have kept the application pending till the appeals were decided on 23.03.2009. On High Court is correct and justified taken in the impugned judgment that there cannot be successive applications under in view of Pradeep Kumari (supra). But that is not the point arising for consideration here. No doubt, the second application dated 27.05.2009 for re-fixation in light of the appellate court judgment is not maintainable. However, since the Collector is also at fault in deciding the application when the matter was pending in we are of the view that in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the application dated 31.12.1992 should be considered afresh. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as follows. The Land Acquisition Collector is directed to consider afresh the application dated 31.12.1992 and pass orders in the light of the judgment of the igh Court dated 23.03.2009 in First Appeal Nos.569 and 570 of 1997 on the file of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. For enabling the Collector to pass orders as above, the order dated 25.10.2000 is set aside. However, the amounts already paid are to be application was decided. That is the special and distinctive factual position in the instant case. It must also be kept in mind that application dated 31.12.1992 123 and 129 of 1983 was decided on 25.10.2000 when the appeals therefrom were pending. The Collector ought to have kept the application pending till the appeals were decided on 23.03.2009. On High Court is correct and justified in the impugned judgment that there cannot be successive applications under in view of Pradeep Kumari (supra). But that is not the point arising for consideration here. No doubt, the second application dated light of the appellate court judgment is not maintainable. However, since the Collector is also at fault in deciding the application when the matter was pending in in the peculiar ated 31.12.1992 should be considered afresh. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as follows. The Land Acquisition Collector is directed to consider afresh the application dated 31.12.1992 and pass orders in the light of the judgment of the igh Court dated 23.03.2009 in First Appeal Nos.569 and 570 of 1997 on the file of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. For enabling the Collector to pass orders as above, the order dated 25.10.2000 is set aside. are to be SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.11 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1908 908-1999 (O&M) [5] duly adjusted.” “Banwari’s case (supra) 15. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the First Appeal which was allowed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 2nd May 2016 was in respect of the land which was covered by the same notification under which notification the appellants’ l It is also not in dispute that the amount awarded by the High Court in the said First Appeal is in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the 1894 Act in the case of the land of the appellants. It is also not that the appellants had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. It is also not in dispute that the application made by the appellants under Section 28 the 1894 Act to the Collector was within a period of three months from the date of the judgment and order of the High Court. 16. From the perusal of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumari (supra), it is clear that the limitation for moving the application under Section 28 run only from the date of the award on the basis of which redetermination of the compensation is sought. The appellants are seeking redetermination of the compensation on the basis of the judgment and order of the High Court in First Appeal N May 2016. It is not disputed that the application of the appellants under Section 28 ] case (supra) In the present case, it is not in dispute that the First Appeal which was allowed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 2nd May 2016 was in respect of the land which was covered by the same notification under which notification the appellants’ land is also covered. It is also not in dispute that the amount awarded by the High Court in the said First Appeal is in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the 1894 Act in the case of the land of the appellants. It is also not in dispute that the appellants had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. It is also not in dispute that the application made by the appellants under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act to the Collector was within a period three months from the date of the judgment and order of the High Court. From the perusal of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumari (supra), it is clear that the limitation for moving the application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act will begin to run only from the date of the award on the basis of which redetermination of the compensation is sought. The appellants are seeking redetermination of the compensation on the basis of the judgment and order of the High Court in First Appeal No. 429 of 2023 dated 2nd May 2016. It is not disputed that the application of the appellants under Section 28-A of the 1894 In the present case, it is not in dispute that the First Appeal which was allowed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 2nd May 2016 was in respect of the land which was covered by the same notification under which and is also covered. It is also not in dispute that the amount awarded by the High Court in the said First Appeal is in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the 1894 Act in the case of in dispute that the appellants had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. It is also not in dispute that the application A of the 1894 Act to the Collector was within a period three months from the date of the judgment From the perusal of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumari (supra), it is clear that the limitation for moving the application will begin to run only from the date of the award on the basis of which redetermination of the compensation is sought. The appellants are seeking redetermination of the compensation on the basis of the judgment and order of the High o. 429 of 2023 dated 2nd May 2016. It is not disputed that the application A of the 1894 SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.11 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1908 8. terms of (supra). 9. disposed of. 06.02.2026 sanjay 908-1999 (O&M) [6] Act is within a period of three months from 2nd May 2016.” Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is terms of decision rendered by this Court in Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 06.02.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? ] Act is within a period of three months from 2nd Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in decision rendered by this Court in Kabul Singh’s case Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No Act is within a period of three months from 2nd allowed in case Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.11 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document