CWP-11646 317 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Manoj and another State of Haryana and ors. CORAM: Present:- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) behalf of the petitioners/landowners is for release of them in accordance with the award dated 11.09.2012 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Sonepat, for short ‘the LAC’. 2. situated within the revenue estate of Village Jat Joshi, Ahmadpur, Tehsil District Sonepat was acquired vide notifications dated 22.02.2010 and 17.02.2011 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(for short ‘the Act’), respectively, purpose of construction of Sports S under Section 11 of the Act was announced on 11.09.2012, thereby determining the market value of the land besides awarding annuity scheme benefits @ Rs.21,000/ 1646-2026 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP- Date of Decision: 07.05.2026 Manoj and another Versus State of Haryana and ors. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present writ petition, the short prayer made on behalf of the petitioners/landowners is for release of them in accordance with the award dated 11.09.2012 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Sonepat, for short ‘the LAC’. Briefly stating, some land owned by the petitioners, situated within the revenue estate of Village Jat Joshi, Ahmadpur, Tehsil District Sonepat was acquired vide notifications dated 22.02.2010 and 17.02.2011 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(for short ‘the Act’), respectively, purpose of construction of Sports Stadium in Sector 4, Sonepat. Award under Section 11 of the Act was announced on 11.09.2012, thereby determining the market value of the land besides awarding annuity scheme benefits @ Rs.21,000/- per acre per annum for a period of 33 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -11646-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.05.2026 ........ Petitioners ......... Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana. By way of present writ petition, the short prayer made on behalf of the petitioners/landowners is for release of annuity benefits to them in accordance with the award dated 11.09.2012 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Sonepat, for short ‘the LAC’. Briefly stating, some land owned by the petitioners, situated within the revenue estate of Village Jat Joshi, Rathdhana and Ahmadpur, Tehsil District Sonepat was acquired vide notifications dated 22.02.2010 and 17.02.2011 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(for short ‘the Act’), respectively, for the tadium in Sector 4, Sonepat. Award under Section 11 of the Act was announced on 11.09.2012, thereby determining the market value of the land besides awarding annuity per acre per annum for a period of 33 By way of present writ petition, the short prayer made on annuity benefits to them in accordance with the award dated 11.09.2012 passed by the Briefly stating, some land owned by the petitioners, Rathdhana and Ahmadpur, Tehsil District Sonepat was acquired vide notifications dated 22.02.2010 and 17.02.2011 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of for the tadium in Sector 4, Sonepat. Award under Section 11 of the Act was announced on 11.09.2012, thereby determining the market value of the land besides awarding annuity per acre per annum for a period of 33 SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.13 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11646 years in accordance wi 09.11.2010. The relevant para 4 of the award is extracted hereunder: 3. the award dated 11.09.2012, the petitioners were entitled of Annual A period of 33 yea yet annuity benefits in terms of the aforementioned award was neither released in favour of the petitioners/ landowners at the time of passing of the award nor even when the possession was taken over. points out that despite a lapse of approximately 14 years, no action 1646-2026 (O&M) [2] years in accordance with the government gazette notification dated 09.11.2010. The relevant para 4 of the award is extracted hereunder: “4. MARKET VALUE:- Commissioner-cum was requested to supply the market value of land under acquisition Commissioner-cum the market value of the land under acquisition vide his memo No. Rs. 65 Lacs per acre for all kinds of land I have inspected the land under acquisition along with the revenue staff of my office before announcement of the Award. Keeping in view the location, situation and all other factors, I observe that the market supplied by the Deputy Commissioner Collector, Sonipat are fair and adequate i.e. Rs. 65 lakhs per acre and 21,000/- per acre per annum for a period of 33 years, published vide government gazette dated 9.11.2010 which will be increased by a fixed sum of Rs. 750/- the same.” Leaned counsel for the petitioners submits that in terms of the award dated 11.09.2012, the petitioners were entitled Annuity at the rate of Rs. 21,000 period of 33 years with annual increase of R yet annuity benefits in terms of the aforementioned award was neither released in favour of the petitioners/ landowners at the time of passing of the award nor even when the possession was taken over. points out that despite a lapse of approximately 14 years, no action th the government gazette notification dated 09.11.2010. The relevant para 4 of the award is extracted hereunder:- - The Deputy cum-Collector, Sonipat District was requested to supply the market value of land under acquisition. The Deputy cum-Collector, Sonipat supplied the market value of the land under acquisition vide his memo No. 356/DRAdt. 23.12.2012 as Lacs per acre for all kinds of land. I have inspected the land under acquisition along with the revenue staff of my office before announcement of the Award. Keeping in view the location, situation and all other factors, I observe that the market rate supplied by the Deputy Commissioner-cum- llector, Sonipat are fair and adequate i.e. Rs. 65 lakhs per acre and the Annuity Scheme @ of per acre per annum for a period of 33 years, published vide government gazette dated 11.2010 which will be increased by a fixed per acre every year. I award Leaned counsel for the petitioners submits that in terms of the award dated 11.09.2012, the petitioners were entitled for payment 21,000/- per acre per annum for a rs with annual increase of Rs. 750/- per acre per year yet annuity benefits in terms of the aforementioned award was neither released in favour of the petitioners/ landowners at the time of passing of the award nor even when the possession was taken over. He further points out that despite a lapse of approximately 14 years, no action th the government gazette notification dated - Leaned counsel for the petitioners submits that in terms of or payment per acre per annum for a per acre per year yet annuity benefits in terms of the aforementioned award was neither released in favour of the petitioners/ landowners at the time of passing He further points out that despite a lapse of approximately 14 years, no action SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.13 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11646 has been taken by the respondents to ensure that Annual Annuity is released in favour of the landowners. 4. till date. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that in terms of the policy dated 09.11.2010 regarding annuity Scheme, the landowners were required to make appropriate application within six months of the award and since no such application was made by the petitioners; they were not entitled for release of any benefit under the Annuity Scheme and therefore, the present writ petition filed at the instance of the petitioners deserves to be dismissed. 5. through the paper 6. was passed by the LAC on 11.09.2012. In the said award, under the heading of market value, the landowners were held entitled to Scheme benefits @ Rs. 21,000/ annuity benefits were not only payable in terms of the policy dated 09.10.2011 but also formed an integral part of the award dated 11.09.2012 passed by the LAC in exercise of powers under Section 1 of the 1894 Act. In such circumstances, once the annuity benefits stood incorporated in the award itself, a statutory obligation was cast upon the respondents to release the same in favour of the landowners, without requiring them to submit any applicati 7. landowners for award of annuity benefits to be 1646-2026 (O&M) [3] has been taken by the respondents to ensure that Annual Annuity is released in favour of the landowners. Despite notice, no reply has been filed by the respondents date. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that in terms of the policy dated 09.11.2010 regarding annuity Scheme, the landowners were required to make appropriate application within six months of the award and since no such application was made by the petitioners; they were not entitled for release of any benefit under the Annuity Scheme and therefore, the present writ petition filed at the instance of the petitioners deserves to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel through the paper-book. As per the record, the award under Section 11 of the Act was passed by the LAC on 11.09.2012. In the said award, under the heading of market value, the landowners were held entitled to benefits @ Rs. 21,000/- per acre per annum. Th annuity benefits were not only payable in terms of the policy dated 09.10.2011 but also formed an integral part of the award dated 11.09.2012 passed by the LAC in exercise of powers under Section 1 of the 1894 Act. In such circumstances, once the annuity benefits stood incorporated in the award itself, a statutory obligation was cast upon the respondents to release the same in favour of the landowners, without requiring them to submit any applicati Moreover, this issue with respect to the application by landowners for award of annuity benefits to be has been taken by the respondents to ensure that Annual Annuity is Despite notice, no reply has been filed by the respondents date. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that in terms of the policy dated 09.11.2010 regarding annuity Scheme, the landowners were required to make appropriate application within six months of the award and since no such application was made by the petitioners; they were not entitled for release of any benefit under the Annuity Scheme and therefore, the present writ petition filed at the instance of the petitioners deserves to I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone As per the record, the award under Section 11 of the Act was passed by the LAC on 11.09.2012. In the said award, under the heading of market value, the landowners were held entitled to Annuity per acre per annum. Thus, the said annuity benefits were not only payable in terms of the policy dated 09.10.2011 but also formed an integral part of the award dated 11.09.2012 passed by the LAC in exercise of powers under Section 1 of the 1894 Act. In such circumstances, once the annuity benefits stood incorporated in the award itself, a statutory obligation was cast upon the respondents to release the same in favour of the landowners, without requiring them to submit any application in this regard. issue with respect to the application by landowners for award of annuity benefits to be made within six months has been taken by the respondents to ensure that Annual Annuity is Despite notice, no reply has been filed by the respondents date. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that in terms of the policy dated 09.11.2010 regarding annuity Scheme, the landowners were required to make appropriate application within six months of the award and since no such application was made by the petitioners; they were not entitled for release of any benefit under the Annuity Scheme and therefore, the present writ petition filed at the instance of the petitioners deserves to for the parties and gone As per the record, the award under Section 11 of the Act was passed by the LAC on 11.09.2012. In the said award, under the nnuity said annuity benefits were not only payable in terms of the policy dated 09.10.2011 but also formed an integral part of the award dated 11.09.2012 passed by the LAC in exercise of powers under Section 11 of the 1894 Act. In such circumstances, once the annuity benefits stood incorporated in the award itself, a statutory obligation was cast upon the respondents to release the same in favour of the landowners, issue with respect to the application by made within six months SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.13 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11646 from the date of award of the LAC in terms of Notification/Policy dated 09.11.2010 issued by the Govt. of H upon by this Court vide decision dated 20.12.2023 passed in 16737 of 2023 Haryana and others” specified under the af directory in nature. Relevant paras dated 20.12.2023 are re 1646-2026 (O&M) [4] from the date of award of the LAC in terms of Notification/Policy dated 09.11.2010 issued by the Govt. of Haryana already stands adjudicated upon by this Court vide decision dated 20.12.2023 passed in 16737 of 2023, titled “Om Parkash and others Versus The State of Haryana and others”, while recording that the period of six months specified under the aforesaid notification needs to be treated as directory in nature. Relevant paras-13 & 19 of the aforesaid decision 20.12.2023 are re-produced hereunder: “[13] An examination of sub Scheme, as specified under Clause is no exclusion clause in this policy and all the landowners, whose land has been acquired by the State are eligible for the benefits under this policy. In clause (vii), it has been stipulated that landowner would be required to submit the Annuity claim in the prescribed form (application form- documents, within a period of six months of the Award, though no consequences have been provided, in case a landowner fails to submit his application within 6 months and thus, any such condition, at best, has to be considered and treated as directory in natur [19] Thus, in the absence of any consequences being provided, if the application with regard to grant of annuity benefits is filed beyond a period of six (06) mon award; and specifically taking into consideration the fact that it is a beneficial policy implemented by the Government on account of being a welfare State, and the condition being merely related to a procedure, this condition cannot be consider condition. At best, if landowner applies for the benefits under this Scheme after a delay despite of being specifically informed in this regard, State could withhold the amount of annuity schemes pertaining to specific years only and not for the entire duration of 33 years.” from the date of award of the LAC in terms of Notification/Policy dated aryana already stands adjudicated upon by this Court vide decision dated 20.12.2023 passed in CWP No. “Om Parkash and others Versus The State of , while recording that the period of six months oresaid notification needs to be treated as 13 & 19 of the aforesaid decision produced hereunder:- An examination of sub-clauses (i) to (iii) of Annuity Scheme, as specified under Clause-4, reveals that there is no exclusion clause in this policy and all the landowners, whose land has been acquired by the State are eligible for the benefits under this policy. In clause (vii), it has been stipulated that landowner would be he Annuity claim in the prescribed -2), alongwith the supporting documents, within a period of six months of the Award, though no consequences have been provided, in case a landowner fails to submit his application within 6 months thus, any such condition, at best, has to be considered and treated as directory in nature. [19] Thus, in the absence of any consequences being provided, if the application with regard to grant of annuity benefits is filed beyond a period of six (06) months of the award; and specifically taking into consideration the fact that it is a beneficial policy implemented by the Government on account of being a welfare State, and the condition being merely related to a procedure, this condition cannot be considered as a mandatory condition. At best, if landowner applies for the benefits under this Scheme after a delay despite of being specifically informed in this regard, State could withhold the amount of annuity schemes pertaining to specific for the entire duration of 33 years.” from the date of award of the LAC in terms of Notification/Policy dated aryana already stands adjudicated CWP No. “Om Parkash and others Versus The State of , while recording that the period of six months oresaid notification needs to be treated as 13 & 19 of the aforesaid decision clauses (i) to (iii) of Annuity reveals that there is no exclusion clause in this policy and all the landowners, whose land has been acquired by the State are eligible for the benefits under this policy. In clause (vii), it has been stipulated that landowner would be he Annuity claim in the prescribed 2), alongwith the supporting documents, within a period of six months of the Award, though no consequences have been provided, in case a landowner fails to submit his application within 6 months thus, any such condition, at best, has to be [19] Thus, in the absence of any consequences being provided, if the application with regard to grant of annuity ths of the award; and specifically taking into consideration the fact that it is a beneficial policy implemented by the Government on account of being a welfare State, and the condition being merely related to a procedure, this ed as a mandatory condition. At best, if landowner applies for the benefits under this Scheme after a delay despite of being specifically informed in this regard, State could withhold the amount of annuity schemes pertaining to specific SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.13 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11646 8. vide decision dated 01.12.2016 passed in titled “Jagdish Rai and others Versus State of Haryana and others”, directed the respondents to grant annuity benefits in favour of the landowners despite their claim being rejected by the authorities on the ground that the applications were submitted beyond six months. The aforesaid decision dated 01.12.2016 being releva hereunder:- 1646-2026 (O&M) [5] Furthermore, even the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide decision dated 01.12.2016 passed in “Jagdish Rai and others Versus State of Haryana and directed the respondents to grant annuity benefits in favour of the landowners despite their claim being rejected by the authorities on the ground that the applications were submitted beyond six months. The aforesaid decision dated 01.12.2016 being releva - “Petitioners are residents of villages Kanheli & Mania, Tehsil & District Rohtak. Their land was acquired vide Award dated 04.01.2011 for development of Sector 25 at Rohtak. As per R&R Policy of the State Government, they are entitled to be paid `Annuity'. The instant writ petition has been filed alleging that for two years they were paid the `Annuity amount' but thereafter it was stopped without assigning any reason. Land Acquisition Collector has filed the reply plea that payment of `Annuity' was stopped as the petitioners did not allegedly submit the application form within six months. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The plea taken by the Land Acquisition Collector appears to be a lame excuse for his failure to release the ‘Annuity' to which the petitioners are admittedly entitled to in lieu of acquired land. The application form, if any, ought to have been obtained by the Land Acquisition Collector in the very beginning. Once the Authority could possibly be no occasion for the petitioners to submit further applications. We, thus, dispose of this writ petition with a direction that the arrears of `Annuity' be released to the petitioners alongwith interest @ 7% annum within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Hitherto also the `Annuity' Furthermore, even the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide decision dated 01.12.2016 passed in CWP No. 3123 of 2016 “Jagdish Rai and others Versus State of Haryana and directed the respondents to grant annuity benefits in favour of the landowners despite their claim being rejected by the authorities on the ground that the applications were submitted beyond six months. The aforesaid decision dated 01.12.2016 being relevant is extracted “Petitioners are residents of villages Kanheli & Mania, Tehsil & District Rohtak. Their land was acquired vide Award dated 04.01.2011 for development of Sector 25 at Rohtak. As per R&R Policy of the State ntitled to be paid `Annuity'. The instant writ petition has been filed alleging that for two years they were paid the `Annuity amount' but thereafter it was stopped without assigning any reason. Land Acquisition Collector has filed the reply-affidavit taking a plea that payment of `Annuity' was stopped as the petitioners did not allegedly submit the application form We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The plea taken by the Land Acquisition Collector appears for his failure to release the ‘Annuity' to which the petitioners are admittedly entitled to in lieu of acquired land. The application form, if any, ought to have been obtained by the Land Acquisition Collector in the Once the Authority started paying `Annuity', there could possibly be no occasion for the petitioners to submit further applications. We, thus, dispose of this writ petition with a direction that the arrears of `Annuity' be released to the petitioners alongwith interest @ 7% per annum within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Hitherto also the `Annuity' Furthermore, even the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court CWP No. 3123 of 2016, “Jagdish Rai and others Versus State of Haryana and directed the respondents to grant annuity benefits in favour of the landowners despite their claim being rejected by the authorities on the ground that the applications were submitted beyond six months. nt is extracted “Petitioners are residents of villages Kanheli & Mania, Tehsil & District Rohtak. Their land was acquired vide Award dated 04.01.2011 for development of Sector 25 at Rohtak. As per R&R Policy of the State ntitled to be paid `Annuity'. The instant writ petition has been filed alleging that for two years they were paid the `Annuity amount' but thereafter it was stopped without assigning any reason. Land ng a plea that payment of `Annuity' was stopped as the petitioners did not allegedly submit the application form We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The plea taken by the Land Acquisition Collector appears for his failure to release the ‘Annuity' to which the petitioners are admittedly entitled to in lieu of acquired land. The application form, if any, ought to have been obtained by the Land Acquisition Collector in the started paying `Annuity', there could possibly be no occasion for the petitioners to submit further applications. We, thus, dispose of this writ petition with a direction that the arrears of `Annuity' be per annum within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Hitherto also the `Annuity' SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.13 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11646 9. landowners Notification/Policy dated 09.11. Disaster Management Department, Haryana Government. 10. their statutory obligation towards the release of annuity benefits granted under the Award are directed to disbu the petitioners of certified copy of thisorder landowners in this regard. The respondents shall also pay the benefit of statutory int disbursal of the arrears of annuity benefits. 11. petition is allowed. 12. disposed of. 07.05.2026 sanjay 1646-2026 (O&M) [6] shall be paid to the petitioners uninterruptedly and in the event of any delay, they shall be entitled to interest @7% per annum which shall the Officers/officials found responsible for such delay. In view of the aforesaid position of law, the petitioner are held entitled for award of annuity benefits in terms of Notification/Policy dated 09.11.2010 issued by the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Haryana Government. Accordingly, the respondents having failed to discharge their statutory obligation towards the release of annuity benefits granted under the Award are directed to disbu the petitioners-landowners within two months of certified copy of thisorder without waiting for any application by the landowners in this regard. The respondents shall also pay the benefit of statutory interest under Section 34 of the Act on the delayed disbursal of the arrears of annuity benefits. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable shall be paid to the petitioners uninterruptedly and in the event of any delay, they shall be entitled to interest @7% be personally recoverable from the Officers/officials found responsible for such delay.” In view of the aforesaid position of law, the petitioners held entitled for award of annuity benefits in terms of 2010 issued by the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Haryana Government. Accordingly, the respondents having failed to discharge their statutory obligation towards the release of annuity benefits granted under the Award are directed to disburse the same in favour of landowners within two months from the date of receipt without waiting for any application by the landowners in this regard. The respondents shall also pay the benefit erest under Section 34 of the Act on the delayed disbursal of the arrears of annuity benefits. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the writ Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand ( HARKESH MANUJA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No shall be paid to the petitioners uninterruptedly and in the event of any delay, they shall be entitled to interest @7% be personally recoverable from s- held entitled for award of annuity benefits in terms of 2010 issued by the Revenue and Accordingly, the respondents having failed to discharge their statutory obligation towards the release of annuity benefits rse the same in favour of from the date of receipt without waiting for any application by the landowners in this regard. The respondents shall also pay the benefit erest under Section 34 of the Act on the delayed In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the writ Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.13 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document