123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT STATE OF HARYANA SURESH CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present Mr. Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the respondent. * ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA 1. This Appeal is by the State of Haryana challenging the judgment dated 21.08.2023 of learned Single Bench passed in CWP-3637-2020, whereby claim of the respondent/writ petitioner for higher compensation under Section (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been allowed. 2. Relevant facts giving rise to the cause for the respondent/writ petitioner to approach this Court the learned Single Bench under:- for public purpose, followed by notification under Section 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: STATE OF HARYANA V HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. A.G., Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the respondent. **** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral) This Appeal is by the State of Haryana challenging the judgment dated 21.08.2023 of learned Single Bench passed in 2020, whereby claim of the respondent/writ petitioner for higher compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been allowed. Relevant facts giving rise to the cause for the respondent/writ petitioner to approach this Court are noticed the learned Single Bench in paragraphs 2 and 3 “2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) was issued on 11.02.2010 for acquisition of land including that of petitioners for public purpose, followed by notification under Section 6 thereof on 19.02.2010. Land Acquisition Collector, Gurugram (for short “LAC”) announced the Award on 14.06.2010, assessing market value @ Rs. 60 lak land. Few other landowners aggrieved with the compensation amount, filed Reference Petition under 18 of the Act wherein they were held entitled to compensation IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-2125-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24th July, 2025 .…...Appellant(s) V/s. ......Respondent(s) ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA KULDEEP TIWARI Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for the appellant. Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the respondent. This Appeal is by the State of Haryana challenging the judgment dated 21.08.2023 of learned Single Bench passed in 2020, whereby claim of the respondent/writ petitioner for A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been allowed. Relevant facts giving rise to the cause for the respondent/writ noticed in the impugned judgment of 2 and 3, which are reproduced as Briefly stated, facts of the case are that notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) was issued on uisition of land including that of petitioners for public purpose, followed by notification under Section 6 thereof on 19.02.2010. Land Acquisition Collector, Gurugram (for short “LAC”) announced the Award on 14.06.2010, assessing market value @ Rs. 60 lakhs per acre for all types of land. Few other landowners aggrieved with the quantum of compensation amount, filed Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act wherein they were held entitled to compensation SURESH KUMAR 2025.07.31 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2125-2025 (O&M) 3. It transpires that the claim for higher compensation under Section 28-A of the Act was based upon an award made by the Court, in respect of similar land covered by the same notification and award. The claim of the respondent was considered by order dated 11.08.2015, wh was awaiting consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. Learned Single Bench has correctly opined that once the award was engaging the attention of the Supreme Court, the appropriate available for the Collector was to have stayed his hands and defer the consideration of application under Section 28 law stands settled under the judgment of the Supreme Court in and Others V 2025 (O&M) @ Rs.1,39,87,202/- per acre along with all vide Award dated 30.07.2014. 3. Petitioner not having availed the remedy of Section 18 of the Act, filed application under Section 28 thereof before respondent No.2 for re compensation. Vide order dated along with others were held entitled to terms of decision dated 30.07.2014 rendered Court, although, at that point in time appeal filed by landowners against the amount of compensation assessed the Reference Court, was pending before this Court. Later, this Court vide its decision dated 27.05.2016 held the landowners of Village Dhorka, District Gurgaon to be entitled for compensation at a uniform rate of Rs.2,92,98,240/ along with all statutory benefits. landowners as well as the State approached Court and vide judgment dated 05.09.2017, Hon'ble Court modified the Award/Judgment dated 27.05.2016 and imposed a cut of 15% towards development. It transpires that the claim for higher compensation under A of the Act was based upon an award made by the in respect of similar land covered by the same notification and award. The claim of the respondent was considered by 11.08.2015, when the matter relating to the legality of award was awaiting consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned Single Bench has correctly opined that once the award was engaging the attention of the Supreme Court, the appropriate for the Collector was to have stayed his hands and defer the consideration of application under Section 28 law stands settled under the judgment of the Supreme Court in and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another per acre along with all statutory benefits, Petitioner not having availed the remedy of the Act, filed application under Section 28-A No.2 for re-determination of compensation. Vide order dated 11.08.2015, the petitioner along with others were held entitled to receive compensation in terms of decision dated 30.07.2014 rendered by the Reference Court, although, at that point in time appeal filed by other landowners against the amount of compensation assessed by the Reference Court, was pending before this Court. Later, this vide its decision dated 27.05.2016 held the landowners Dhorka, District Gurgaon to be entitled for rate of Rs.2,92,98,240/- per acre l statutory benefits. Subsequently, both the landowners as well as the State approached the Hon'ble Apex Court and vide judgment dated 05.09.2017, Hon'ble Apex Court modified the Award/Judgment dated 27.05.2016 and imposed a cut of 15% towards development.” It transpires that the claim for higher compensation under A of the Act was based upon an award made by the Reference in respect of similar land covered by the same notification and award. The claim of the respondent was considered by the Collector vide the matter relating to the legality of award was awaiting consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned Single Bench has correctly opined that once the award was engaging the attention of the Supreme Court, the appropriate course for the Collector was to have stayed his hands and defer the consideration of application under Section 28-A of the Act. This position in law stands settled under the judgment of the Supreme Court in Babua Ram State of Uttar Pradesh and Another ; (1995) 2 SCC 689. SURESH KUMAR 2025.07.31 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2125-2025 (O&M) 5. It is undisputed that the award which was under Section 28 judgment dated determination made by the Collector under Section 28 the ground that the determination of the Collector Award was not as per the Supreme Court itself was instituted. It is this claim of the respondent which has been allowed by the learned Single Bench. the year 2020, learned Single Bench has denied the benefit of interest between 2017 to 2020. Aggrieved by this judgment, the State of Haryana is before us. 6. Learned counsel for the State primarily submits that the Writ Petition ought not to have been entertained and the proper course for the writ petitioner was to have approach reference under Section 28 7. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that no useful purpose avail of remedy of reference when the award was finally settled by the Supreme Court respondent was identical in its potentiality made by the Supreme Court. 8. Though, the alternative remedy of making reference aggrieved by d and ought to be pursued concur with the view taken by the learned Single Bench that a Writ Petition 2025 (O&M) It is undisputed that the award which was under Section 28-A has been adjudicated finally by the Supreme Court vide dated 05.09.2017. The respondent determination made by the Collector under Section 28 the ground that the determination of the Collector Award was not as per the adjudication finally made by the Supreme Court, in respect of the award on the basis of which the claim itself was instituted. It is this claim of the respondent which has been allowed by the learned Single Bench. Since, the year 2020, learned Single Bench has denied the benefit of interest between 2017 to 2020. Aggrieved by this judgment, the State of Haryana is Learned counsel for the State primarily submits that the Writ on ought not to have been entertained and the proper course for the writ petitioner was to have approached the Civil Court by making a reference under Section 28-A (3) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that no useful purpose would have been served in relegating the tenure holder to avail of remedy of reference when the award was finally settled by the Supreme Court. It was otherwise not disputed that the land of the respondent was identical in its potentiality to made by the Supreme Court. Though, the alternative remedy of making reference aggrieved by determination under Section 28 and ought to be pursued, but in the peculiar facts of the present concur with the view taken by the learned Single Bench that a Writ Petition It is undisputed that the award which was the basis of claim adjudicated finally by the Supreme Court vide he respondent therefore challenged the determination made by the Collector under Section 28-A, on 11.08.2015, on the ground that the determination of the Collector was not as per law. adjudication finally made by the Hon’ble in respect of the award on the basis of which the claim itself was instituted. It is this claim of the respondent which has been the Writ Petition was filed in the year 2020, learned Single Bench has denied the benefit of interest between 2017 to 2020. Aggrieved by this judgment, the State of Haryana is Learned counsel for the State primarily submits that the Writ on ought not to have been entertained and the proper course for the the Civil Court by making a Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that no would have been served in relegating the tenure holder to avail of remedy of reference when the award was finally settled by the t was otherwise not disputed that the land of the to the land of which award was Though, the alternative remedy of making reference to a person etermination under Section 28-A (3) of the Act is available, but in the peculiar facts of the present case, we concur with the view taken by the learned Single Bench that a Writ Petition SURESH KUMAR 2025.07.31 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2125-2025 (O&M) could have been entertained so as to grant appropriate relief to the respondent in terms of final adjudication made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. Section 28 of equality inasmuch as the tenure holder potentiality has been acquired been awarded in favour of the other persons. 10. In the facts of the present case, the S the land of the respondent was identical to that of award was made ultimately by the Supreme Court. was not justified in deciding the application under Section 28 when the award was still subjudiced. 11. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Bench as we find that the learned Single Bench has done substantial justice in the matter. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. 12. All pending applications accordingly. July 24, 2025 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 2025 (O&M) could have been entertained so as to grant appropriate relief to the in terms of final adjudication made by the Hon’ble Supreme Section 28-A of the Act is otherwi of equality inasmuch as the tenure holder potentiality has been acquired, ought not be denied compensation which has been awarded in favour of the other persons. In the facts of the present case, the S the land of the respondent was identical to that of award was made ultimately by the Supreme Court. was not justified in deciding the application under Section 28 when the award was still subjudiced. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Bench as we find that the learned Single Bench has done substantial justice in the matter. Accordingly, the Appeal is All pending applications, if any, [ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA [KULDEEP TIWARI 2025 Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : could have been entertained so as to grant appropriate relief to the in terms of final adjudication made by the Hon’ble Supreme otherwise premised on the principles of equality inasmuch as the tenure holder, whose land with similar ought not be denied compensation which has In the facts of the present case, the State does not dispute that the land of the respondent was identical to that of other in whose favour the award was made ultimately by the Supreme Court. The Collector otherwise was not justified in deciding the application under Section 28-A of the Act In such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Bench as we find that the learned Single Bench has done substantial justice in the matter. Accordingly, the Appeal is , if any, in this case are disposed of ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA] JUDGE [KULDEEP TIWARI] JUDGE : Yes / No : Yes / No SURESH KUMAR 2025.07.31 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document