CR-1762-2022 (O&M) 139 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HARYANA URBAN (NOW HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN) ….Petitioner Versus CHHEMA DEVI @ CH CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Siddhanth Aror for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5. Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to an order dated 14 District Judge, Hisar landowners were held entitled for award of similar benefit of market value at the rate of Rs. benefits as was granted to their co [2] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the averments made in the present petition. [3] In the present case, there is no dispute that some of the co sharers of the respondents 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as the Regular First Appeals before this Court for enhancement of compensation dated 26.03.2014 passed in RFA others versus Murti Devi and another 2022 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR Date of Decision: 06.05 HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOW HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN) ….Petitioner Versus CHHEMA DEVI @ CHHIMO DEVI AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Siddhanth Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5. Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to an order dated 14.02.2020 passed by the Court of learned Add District Judge, Hisar-cum-Executing Court, whereby the respondents were held entitled for award of similar benefit of market value at the rate of Rs. 724.75 paisa per square yard benefits as was granted to their co-sharers in the acquired land. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the averments made in the present petition. In the present case, there is no dispute that some of the co harers of the respondents-landowners preferred reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as the Regular First Appeals before this Court for enhancement of compensation dated 26.03.2014 passed in RFA-5626-2010, titled “ s versus Murti Devi and another”, the market value of the acquired 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1762-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.05.2026 DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOW HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN) ….Petitioner MO DEVI AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to passed by the Court of learned Additional Court, whereby the respondents- were held entitled for award of similar benefit of market value 724.75 paisa per square yard alongwith other statutory sharers in the acquired land. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through In the present case, there is no dispute that some of the co- landowners preferred reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as the Regular First Appeals before this Court for enhancement of compensation, wherein vide decision , titled “State of Haryana and ”, the market value of the acquired 1 By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to itional - were held entitled for award of similar benefit of market value ory I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through - landowners preferred reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as the Regular First Appeals , wherein vide decision State of Haryana and ”, the market value of the acquired SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.12 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-1762-2022 (O&M) land was enhanced to Rs. increase on cumulative basis as per order dated 22.08.2014 No. 20531 to 20565 of 2014 [4] The principal contention of petitioner is that respondents neither filed Regular First appeal; nor challenged award of learned Reference Court. Therefore, compensation on the basis of judgments rendered in the cases of other landowners. However, i Apex Court vide decision dated 13.01.2026 passed in No(s).391 - 398 of 20 “Ramphal &Ors. Versus Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & the contention of petitioner, particularly when acquisition notification an determination of compensation arise out of same proceedings and denial of same compensation to similarly situated landowners would result in apparent inequity. In has been pleased to uphold the claims made to entitlement of similar amount of compensation as granted in favour of their co-owners in the acquired land, however, restricted the award of interest. Relevant paras 11 to 14 from the aforesaid decision dated 13.01.2026 are extracted hereunder: 2022 (O&M) land was enhanced to Rs. 724.75 paisa per square yard, followed by 12 increase on cumulative basis as per order dated 22.08.2014 531 to 20565 of 2014 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The principal contention of petitioner is that respondents neither filed Regular First appeal; nor challenged award of learned Reference Court. Therefore, learned Executing Court could not have compensation on the basis of judgments rendered in the cases of other landowners. However, in view of the latest exposition of law Apex Court vide decision dated 13.01.2026 passed in 398 of 2026 (@SLP (C) No(S).4532 “Ramphal &Ors. Versus Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Ors”, the contention of petitioner, particularly when acquisition notification an determination of compensation arise out of same proceedings and denial of same compensation to similarly situated landowners would result in apparent inequity. In Ramphal’s case (supra) has been pleased to uphold the claims made by the co to entitlement of similar amount of compensation as granted in favour of owners in the acquired land, however, restricted the award of interest. Relevant paras 11 to 14 from the aforesaid decision dated e extracted hereunder:- “11. In fact, we have been informed at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, which is not seriously disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, the fact that the land which was acquired, has been utilized for the purposes of formation of industrial sites and allotted to the needy persons in accordance with the Rules then prevalent. In other words, the acquiring body is also benefited to certain extent, which is an instrumentality of 2 square yard, followed by 12% increase on cumulative basis as per order dated 22.08.2014 passed in SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The principal contention of petitioner is that respondents neither filed Regular First appeal; nor challenged award of learned Reference learned Executing Court could not have granted higher compensation on the basis of judgments rendered in the cases of other n view of the latest exposition of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide decision dated 13.01.2026 passed in Civil Appeal 26 (@SLP (C) No(S).4532-4539 of 2023), titled “Ramphal &Ors. Versus Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Ors”, this Court finds no merit in the contention of petitioner, particularly when acquisition notification and determination of compensation arise out of same proceedings and denial of same compensation to similarly situated landowners would result in case (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the co-sharers with regard to entitlement of similar amount of compensation as granted in favour of owners in the acquired land, however, restricted the award of interest. Relevant paras 11 to 14 from the aforesaid decision dated In fact, we have been informed at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, which is not seriously disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, the fact that the land which was acquired, has purposes of formation of industrial sites and allotted to the needy persons in accordance with the Rules then prevalent. In other words, the acquiring body is also benefited to certain extent, which is an instrumentality of 2 % SLP The principal contention of petitioner is that respondents neither filed Regular First appeal; nor challenged award of learned Reference granted higher compensation on the basis of judgments rendered in the cases of other by the Hon’ble Civil Appeal titled “Ramphal &Ors. Versus Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure this Court finds no merit in d determination of compensation arise out of same proceedings and denial of same compensation to similarly situated landowners would result in the Hon’ble Supreme Court sharers with regard to entitlement of similar amount of compensation as granted in favour of owners in the acquired land, however, restricted the award of interest. Relevant paras 11 to 14 from the aforesaid decision dated In fact, we have been informed at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, which is not seriously disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, the fact that the land which was acquired, has purposes of formation of industrial sites and allotted to the needy persons in accordance with the Rules then prevalent. In other words, the acquiring body is also benefited to certain extent, which is an instrumentality of SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.12 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-1762-2022 (O&M) [5] In view of the aforesaid de Supreme Court, the present petition being devoid of merits dismissed. [6] The learned Executing Court is requested to expedite the release of compensation amount in favour of respondents keeping in view the specific and categoric directions issued in case (supra), especially when it has not been disputed by the petitioner that the respondents applicants who preferred references und Acquisition Act, 1894 and enhancement was ordered in their favour. The 2022 (O&M) the State. Thus, the scales hav scenario. 12. 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 th are not entitled for any interest for any other period. We would also hasten to add that 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 and/or modified by the High Court or this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 13. The said determination shall be made by the authorities expeditiously and at any rate within an outer limit of three months from the date of this order and the determined shall be disbursed months for such determination with interest as specified therein. 14. 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 from the date of such determination.” In view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present petition being devoid of merits The learned Executing Court is requested to expedite the release of compensation amount in favour of respondents keeping in view the specific and categoric directions issued in especially when it has not been disputed by the petitioner that the respondents-landowners happened to be the co applicants who preferred references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and enhancement was ordered in their favour. The 3 the State. Thus, the scales have to be balanced in this 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. We would also hasten to add that the appellants would be entitled to all other consequential benefits which flow from award of compensation and the respondent(s) authorities e the compensation as has been determined by the award passed under Section 18 of the Act and/or modified by the High Court or this Court in exercise of The said determination shall be made by the authorities at any rate within an outer limit of three months from the date of this order and the amounts so determined shall be disbursed within an outer limit of three months for such determination with interest as specified e 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 from the date of such determination.” cision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present petition being devoid of merits is hereby The learned Executing Court is requested to expedite the release of compensation amount in favour of respondents-landowners while keeping in view the specific and categoric directions issued in Ramphal’s especially when it has not been disputed by the petitioner landowners happened to be the co-sharers of the er Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and enhancement was ordered in their favour. The 3 e to be balanced in this 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 e appellants are not entitled for any interest for any other period. We would also hasten to add that the appellants would be entitled to all other consequential benefits which flow from award of compensation and the respondent(s) authorities e the compensation as has been determined by the award passed under Section 18 of the Act and/or modified by the High Court or this Court in exercise of The said determination shall be made by the authorities at any rate within an outer limit of three amounts so within an outer limit of three months for such determination with interest as specified e 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 cision rendered by the Hon’ble hereby The learned Executing Court is requested to expedite the release landowners while Ramphal’s especially when it has not been disputed by the petitioner sharers of the er Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and enhancement was ordered in their favour. The SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.12 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-1762-2022 (O&M) respondents-landowners shall also be entitled to the award of market value which was finally determined with respect to the related acquisition. [7] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 06.05.2026 sanjay Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? 2022 (O&M) landowners shall also be entitled to the award of market value which was finally determined with respect to the related acquisition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? 4 landowners shall also be entitled to the award of market value which was finally determined with respect to the related acquisition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 4 landowners shall also be entitled to the award of market value Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.12 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document