130(15 cases) Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Panchkula Jhabar Singh and CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. petitions bearing CR Nos. 5177, 6082, 6084, 6092, 6100 of 5957, 706, 719, 720, 753, 755, 1359 & 1362 of of 2025; as the same convenience, the facts are being culled out from 2022. 2. cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision N and other connected cases. Date of Decision: Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Panchkula Versus Jhabar Singh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA : Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Advocate and Mr. Siddhanth Arora, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Ankur Kaushik, Advocate; Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate; Mr. Sumeet Jain, Advocate for the private respondent(s) (in their respective cases Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) This order shall decide the present petitions bearing CR Nos. 5177, 6082, 6084, 6092, 6100 of 5957, 706, 719, 720, 753, 755, 1359 & 1362 of ; as the same arise out of a common issue. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being culled out from By way of present revision petition, challenge has been IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5177 of 2022 (O&M) and other connected cases. Date of Decision: 03.02.2026 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Panchkula .......... Petitioner Versus .......... Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA , Advocate Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Advocate and Mr. Siddhanth Arora, Advocate Mr. Ankur Kaushik, Advocate; Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate; Mr. Sumeet Jain, Advocate for the private respondent(s) (in their respective cases) Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana the present fifteen (15) revision petitions bearing CR Nos. 5177, 6082, 6084, 6092, 6100 of 2022 5957, 706, 719, 720, 753, 755, 1359 & 1362 of 2023; and 263, 3222, common issue. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being culled out from CR No. 5177 of By way of present revision petition, challenge has been .......... Respondents ) revision 2022; ; and 263, 3222, common issue. For the sake of CR No. 5177 of By way of present revision petition, challenge has been SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.10 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document laid to an order dated 27.03.2019 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram-cum-Executing Court, whereby the respondent(s)-landowner(s) was/ were held entitled for award of similar benefit of market value at the rate of Rs.48,46,000/- per acre alongwith other statutory benefits as was granted to their co-sharers in the acquired land. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and gone through the averments made in the present petition(s). 4. In the present case, there is no dispute that some of the co-sharers of the respondent(s)-landowner(s) in the acquired land preferred reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as the Regular First Appeal(s) before this Court for further enhancement of compensation, wherein, vide decision dated 25.05.2018 passed in RFA-776-2014, tiled “Smt. Khajani Devi and others Versus State of Haryana”, the market value of the acquired land was enhanced to Rs.48,46,000/- per acre. 5. In view of the latest exposition of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide decision dated 13.01.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No(s).391 - 398 of 2026 (@ SLP (C) No(S).4532-4539 of 2023), titled “Ramphal & Ors. Versus Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Ors”, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to uphold the claims made by the co-sharers in relation to seeking similar amount of compensation as granted in favour of co-owners in the acquired land, SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.10 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document however, restricted the award of interest. Relevant paras 11 to 14 from the aforesaid decision dated 13.01.2026 are 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 the State. Thus, the scales have to be balanced in this 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 the appellants are not entitled for any interest for any other 6 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 amounts so determined shall be disbursed within an outer limit of three 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) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.10 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document authorities, they shall be liable to pay interest @ nine per cent (9%) on the amounts so determined from the date of such determination.” 6. In view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. 7. The learned Executing Court is requested to expedite the release of compensation amount in favour of respondent(s)- landowner(s) while keeping in view the specific and categoric directions issued in Ramphal’s case (supra), especially when it has not been disputed by the petitioner that the respondent(s)- landowner(s) happened to be the co-sharers of the applicant(s) who even preferred reference(s) under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and enhancement was ordered in their favour. The respondent(s)-landowner(s) shall also be entitled to the award of market value which was finally determined with respect to the related acquisition. 8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. February 03, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) 'dk kamra’/sanjay JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.10 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document