CWP-26291 169 +170 (3 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corp. Ltd. Azad Singh and others CORAM: Present:- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Petitions, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided acquisition/Award involving identical facts and question of law. sake of brevity, facts are being taken from 2. for setting aside of the Award dated 12.06.2023 passed by Land Acquisition Collector under Section 28 1894 Act’, was allowed holding the landowners entitled for enhanced compensation @ Rs.281200/ Reference Court. 26291-2024 (O&M) [1] 169 +170 (3 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP- Date of Decision: 07.05.2026 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corp. Ltd. Versus Azad Singh and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate and Ms. Surbhi Rana, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents/ landowners. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Vide this common order, a , details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided together as all have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving identical facts and question of law. sake of brevity, facts are being taken from By way of present writ petition(s), prayer has been made for setting aside of the Award dated 12.06.2023 passed by Land Acquisition Collector-cum-DRO, Rohtak, whereby an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the 1894 Act’, was allowed holding the landowners entitled for enhanced compensation @ Rs.281200/- per acre as assessed by the learned Reference Court. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -26291-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.05.2026 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corp. Ltd. ........ Petitioner ......... Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate and None for the respondents/ landowners. Vide this common order, a bunch of three Civil Writ , details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, as all have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving identical facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from CWP-26291-2024 (O&M). By way of present writ petition(s), prayer has been made for setting aside of the Award dated 12.06.2023 passed by Land DRO, Rohtak, whereby an application filed A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the 1894 Act’, was allowed holding the landowners entitled for enhanced per acre as assessed by the learned three Civil Writ , details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, as all have arisen out of common For the By way of present writ petition(s), prayer has been made for setting aside of the Award dated 12.06.2023 passed by Land filed A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the 1894 Act’, was allowed holding the landowners entitled for enhanced per acre as assessed by the learned SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.18 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26291 3. since regular first appeals arisen out of the adjudication made by the learned Reference Court were pending before this Court at the time of passing of the impugned award by the LAC applications preferred should have been kept pending for awaiting the final outcome of determination qua the market value regarding the subject acquired land. 4. through the pap 5. preferred at the instance of respondents / landowners in terms of Section 28- by the concerned authority i.e. the LAC be appropriate at this stage to set aside the said determination. However, a conjoint reading of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ State Industrial and Infrastructure Deve Limited (HSIIDC) and Another” “Andanayya and Ors. reported as under Section 28 determination made by the Reference Court alone, but extends to subsequent appellate adjudications rendered by the High Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court concerning land covered under the same acquisition notification. The period of limita 26291-2024 (O&M) [2] The short ground raised on be since regular first appeals arisen out of the adjudication made by the learned Reference Court were pending before this Court at the time of passing of the impugned award by the LAC applications preferred at the instance of respondents/ landowners should have been kept pending for awaiting the final outcome of determination qua the market value regarding the subject acquired I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the paper-book. In the humble opinion of this Court, once the applications preferred at the instance of respondents / landowners in terms of -A of the 1894 Act stands dealt with and adjudicated upon by the concerned authority i.e. the LAC- be appropriate at this stage to set aside the said determination. However, a conjoint reading of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Banwari and Ors. versus Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Deve Limited (HSIIDC) and Another” reported as “Andanayya and Ors. Versus Deputy Chief Engineer and Ors.” reported as 2026(2) RCR (Civil) 502 makes it manifest that the benefit under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act is not re determination made by the Reference Court alone, but extends to subsequent appellate adjudications rendered by the High Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court concerning land covered under the same acquisition notification. The period of limita The short ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is that since regular first appeals arisen out of the adjudication made by the learned Reference Court were pending before this Court at the time of passing of the impugned award by the LAC-cum-DRO, Rohtak, the at the instance of respondents/ landowners should have been kept pending for awaiting the final outcome of determination qua the market value regarding the subject acquired I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone In the humble opinion of this Court, once the applications preferred at the instance of respondents / landowners in terms of A of the 1894 Act stands dealt with and adjudicated upon -cum-DRO, Rohtak, it may not be appropriate at this stage to set aside the said determination. However, a conjoint reading of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Banwari and Ors. versus Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation reported as 2024 INSC 951, and Deputy Chief Engineer and Ors.” makes it manifest that the benefit A of the 1894 Act is not restricted to the determination made by the Reference Court alone, but extends to subsequent appellate adjudications rendered by the High Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court concerning land covered under the same acquisition notification. The period of limitation for seeking re half of the petitioner is that since regular first appeals arisen out of the adjudication made by the learned Reference Court were pending before this Court at the time of DRO, Rohtak, the at the instance of respondents/ landowners should have been kept pending for awaiting the final outcome of determination qua the market value regarding the subject acquired I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone In the humble opinion of this Court, once the applications preferred at the instance of respondents / landowners in terms of A of the 1894 Act stands dealt with and adjudicated upon Rohtak, it may not be appropriate at this stage to set aside the said determination. However, a conjoint reading of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Banwari and Ors. versus Haryana lopment Corporation and Deputy Chief Engineer and Ors.”, makes it manifest that the benefit stricted to the determination made by the Reference Court alone, but extends to subsequent appellate adjudications rendered by the High Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court concerning land covered under the same tion for seeking re- SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.18 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26291 determination would commence from the award/judgment forming basis of such claim. Further, by virtue of the doctrine of merger, similarly situated landowners who had not sought reference under Section 18 remain entitled to parity in com the final determination of market value, and an earlier exercise of remedy under Section 28 claiming consequential enhancement flowing from a later appellate adjudication. Relevant portion of hereunder: 26291-2024 (O&M) [3] determination would commence from the award/judgment forming basis of such claim. Further, by virtue of the doctrine of merger, similarly situated landowners who had not sought reference under Section 18 remain entitled to parity in com the final determination of market value, and an earlier exercise of remedy under Section 28-A would not operate as a bar against claiming consequential enhancement flowing from a later appellate adjudication. Relevant portion of both the judgments are reproduced 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' 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 28A of 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 and Others (supra), it is clear that the limitation for moving the application under Section 28A of the 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 28A of the 1894 Act is within a period of three months from 2nd May 2016.” Andanayya’s Case (supra) determination would commence from the award/judgment forming basis of such claim. Further, by virtue of the doctrine of merger, similarly situated landowners who had not sought reference under Section 18 remain entitled to parity in compensation corresponding to the final determination of market value, and an earlier exercise of A would not operate as a bar against claiming consequential enhancement flowing from a later appellate both the judgments are reproduced 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' nd 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 28A of the 1894 Act to the Collector was within a ree 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 and Others (supra), it is clear that the limitation for moving the application under Section 28A 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 28A of the 1894 Act is within a period of three months from 2nd May 2016.” Andanayya’s Case (supra) determination would commence from the award/judgment forming basis of such claim. Further, by virtue of the doctrine of merger, similarly situated landowners who had not sought reference under pensation corresponding to the final determination of market value, and an earlier exercise of A would not operate as a bar against claiming consequential enhancement flowing from a later appellate both the judgments are reproduced 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' nd 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 28A of the 1894 Act to the Collector was within a ree months from the date of the From the perusal of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumari and Others (supra), it is clear that the limitation for moving the application 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 28A of the 1894 Act is within a SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.18 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26291 the respondents/landowners shall be entitled value/compensation as finally assessed by this Court/Hon’ble Apex Court along with all other statutory benefits. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner assessed vide order dated 12.06.2023 before t 26291-2024 (O&M) [4] “ 25. From the analysis made hereinabo relevant provisions of the Act and the judgments relied upon by the parties, we are inclined to hold that even a second application made under Section 28-A of the Act after the award passed by the High Court is maintainable and entitled to be considered by the Collector/LAO. We are of the view that, entertaining an earlier application filed under Section 28-A of the Act on the basis of the award of the Reference Court followed by the receipt of money, shall not act as a bar for the same applicant to seek further re compensation on the basis of the award passed by the High Court or this Court. 26. It is the doctrine of merger that comes into application in such circumstances. The benefit of an enhanced compensation received by a landowner, consequent to the final award passed by the appellate forum, would also extend to similarly placed landowners who seek redetermination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act. To put it differently, when ‘A’ obtains an award from the Referen can also receive the benefit of the same by invoking Section 28 ‘A’ receives an enhancement from the High Court or this Court, ‘B’ is also entitled to receive the same enhancement, notwithstanding the earlier receipt of money under Section 28 based upon the award of the Reference Court. The decision of this Court in Pradeep Kumari (supra) has to be understood and applied only in a context when multiple awards come to be passed by the Reference Court i context when a subsequent award is passed by the High Court or by this Court. Ultimately, the object of Section 28-A of the Act is to maintain parity and equality between the similarly placed landowners in the payment of compen estoppel, waiver or acquiescence would thus not arise, in view of the statutory prescriptions under Section 28-A of the Act.” Thus in view of the above discussed settled legal position, the respondents/landowners shall be entitled value/compensation as finally assessed by this Court/Hon’ble Apex Court along with all other statutory benefits. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit the amount assessed vide order dated 12.06.2023 before t From the analysis made hereinabove on the relevant provisions of the Act and the judgments relied upon by the parties, we are inclined to hold that even a second application made under A of the Act after the award passed by the High Court is maintainable and entitled to be sidered by the Collector/LAO. We are of the view that, entertaining an earlier application filed A of the Act on the basis of the award of the Reference Court followed by the receipt of money, shall not act as a bar for the to seek further re-determination of compensation on the basis of the award passed by the High Court or this Court. It is the doctrine of merger that comes into application in such circumstances. The benefit of an enhanced compensation received by a ndowner, consequent to the final award passed by the appellate forum, would also extend to similarly placed landowners who seek redetermination of compensation under Section A of the Act. To put it differently, when ‘A’ obtains an award from the Reference Court, ‘B’ can also receive the benefit of the same by invoking Section 28-A of the Act. Similarly, when ‘A’ receives an enhancement from the High Court or this Court, ‘B’ is also entitled to receive the same enhancement, notwithstanding the earlier eipt of money under Section 28-A of the Act based upon the award of the Reference Court. The decision of this Court in Pradeep Kumari (supra) has to be understood and applied only in a context when multiple awards come to be passed by the Reference Court itself and not in the present context when a subsequent award is passed by the High Court or by this Court. Ultimately, the object A of the Act is to maintain parity and equality between the similarly placed landowners in the payment of compensation. The question of estoppel, waiver or acquiescence would thus not arise, in view of the statutory prescriptions under A of the Act.” Thus in view of the above discussed settled legal position, the respondents/landowners shall be entitled for award of market value/compensation as finally assessed by this Court/Hon’ble Apex Court along with all other statutory benefits. directed to deposit the amount assessed vide order dated 12.06.2023 before the LAC, who shall, ve on the relevant provisions of the Act and the judgments relied upon by the parties, we are inclined to hold that even a second application made under A of the Act after the award passed by the High Court is maintainable and entitled to be sidered by the Collector/LAO. We are of the view that, entertaining an earlier application filed A of the Act on the basis of the award of the Reference Court followed by the receipt of money, shall not act as a bar for the determination of compensation on the basis of the award passed by It is the doctrine of merger that comes into application in such circumstances. The benefit of an enhanced compensation received by a ndowner, consequent to the final award passed by the appellate forum, would also extend to similarly placed landowners who seek redetermination of compensation under Section A of the Act. To put it differently, when ‘A’ ce Court, ‘B’ can also receive the benefit of the same by A of the Act. Similarly, when ‘A’ receives an enhancement from the High Court or this Court, ‘B’ is also entitled to receive the same enhancement, notwithstanding the earlier A of the Act based upon the award of the Reference Court. The decision of this Court in Pradeep Kumari (supra) has to be understood and applied only in a context when multiple awards come to be passed by the tself and not in the present context when a subsequent award is passed by the High Court or by this Court. Ultimately, the object A of the Act is to maintain parity and equality between the similarly placed landowners sation. The question of estoppel, waiver or acquiescence would thus not arise, in view of the statutory prescriptions under Thus in view of the above discussed settled legal position, for award of market value/compensation as finally assessed by this Court/Hon’ble Apex directed to deposit the amount he LAC, who shall, SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.18 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26291 upon such deposit, ensure the release of the same in favour of the respondent- period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 7. writ petitions are disposed of. 8. disposed of. 07.05.2026 sanjay Sr. No. 1. 2. 07.05.2026 sanjay 26291-2024 (O&M) [5] upon such deposit, ensure the release of the same in favour of the -landowners. The entire exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the present writ petitions are disposed of. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Sr. No. Case No. CWP-26392-2024 (O&M) CWP-26387-2024 (O&M) upon such deposit, ensure the release of the same in favour of the landowners. The entire exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of cussion made hereinabove, the present Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand ( HARKESH MANUJA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No (O&M) (O&M) ( HARKESH MANUJA ) JUDGE upon such deposit, ensure the release of the same in favour of the landowners. The entire exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of cussion made hereinabove, the present Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.18 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document