CWP No.23500 of 2023 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 165 Phoolpati and others Vs State of Haryana and CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. for the petitioners Ms. Komal Sharma, D.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for respondent No.4. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) [1]. By way of present direction to respondent No.3 the application dated Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 of the judgment dated 15.11.20 [2]. In the present case, some land own that of other landowners Tehsil and District Rohtak 13.02.2008 and respectively for Award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector No.23500 of 2023 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. Date of Decision: Phoolpati and others Haryana and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Komal Sharma, D.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) By way of present Writ Petition, prayer has to respondent No.3-Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak the application dated 06.02.2018 preferred at the instance of the petitioners under of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the 1894 Act’) in terms of the judgment dated 15.11.2021 passed by this Court in RFA No.3000 of 2016. In the present case, some land own of other landowners situated within the revenue estate of village Tehsil and District Rohtak came to be acquired vide Notification and 31.12.2008 issued under Section setting up of Industrial Model Township, Rohtak Award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH No.23500 of 2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.09.2025 ......Petitioners ....Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Ms. Komal Sharma, D.A.G., Haryana. prayer has been made for issuance of Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak to decide afresh preferred at the instance of the petitioners under 4 (for short ‘the 1894 Act’) in terms passed by this Court in RFA No.3000 of 2016. In the present case, some land owned by the petitioners along with the revenue estate of village Garhi Bohar, came to be acquired vide Notifications dated under Sections 4 & 6 of the 1894 Act setting up of Industrial Model Township, Rohtak, followed by an Award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) 1 for issuance of to decide afresh preferred at the instance of the petitioners under 4 (for short ‘the 1894 Act’) in terms passed by this Court in RFA No.3000 of 2016. ed by the petitioners along with Garhi Bohar, dated Act followed by an on MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.15 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CWP No.23500 of 2023 (O&M) 17.08.2009 thereby determining the market value to be Rs. all kinds of land [3]. Though the petitioners did not challenge the by the LAC, however under Section 18 of the 1894 Act before the learned Addl. District Judge, Rohtak cum-Reference Court while claiming enhancement. were decided vide two differen enhancing the market value @ Rs.31,71,000/ petitioners preferred application under Section 28 enhancement, which came to be decided by the District Revenue Off Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak benefit of similar compensation @ Rs.31,71,000/ petitioners. In the meanwhile, Regular First Appeals preferred at the instance of other landowners arising out of the orders dated 26.08.2014 and 06.12.2017 passed by the learned Reference Court came to be finally adjudicated upon by this Court vide its decision dated 15.11.2021 passed in RFA No.3000 of 2016 No.10335 of 2014 abutting the National Highway the remaining landowners of the acquired land were value @ Rs.41,38 [4]. The g Collector was a party Act besides also being respondent in the No.23500 of 2023 (O&M) thereby determining the market value to be Rs. all kinds of land along with all other statutory benefits Though the petitioners did not challenge the by the LAC, however, certain other landowners filed separate Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the 1894 Act before the learned Addl. District Judge, Rohtak Reference Court while claiming enhancement. were decided vide two different orders dated 26.08.2014 and 06.12.2017 enhancing the market value @ Rs.31,71,000/ petitioners preferred application under Section 28 enhancement, which came to be decided by the District Revenue Off Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak vide its Award dated 17.07.2023 benefit of similar compensation @ Rs.31,71,000/ In the meanwhile, Regular First Appeals preferred at the instance of landowners arising out of the orders dated 26.08.2014 and 06.12.2017 passed by the learned Reference Court came to be finally adjudicated upon by this Court vide its decision dated 15.11.2021 passed in RFA No.3000 of 2016 No.10335 of 2014 decided on 14.11.2022 whereby the market value of the land abutting the National Highway No.10 was assessed the remaining landowners of the acquired land were 38,750/-. The grouse of the petitioners is that once the Land Acquisition was a party in the Reference Petitions(s) under Section 18 of the 1894 besides also being respondent in the aforementioned RFA No.3000 of 2016 thereby determining the market value to be Rs.20,00,000/- per acre for other statutory benefits as per the 1894 Act. Though the petitioners did not challenge the aforesaid Award passed certain other landowners filed separate Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the 1894 Act before the learned Addl. District Judge, Rohtak Reference Court while claiming enhancement. Those Reference Petitions ated 26.08.2014 and 06.12.2017 thereby enhancing the market value @ Rs.31,71,000/- per acre. Based thereupon, the petitioners preferred application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act seeking enhancement, which came to be decided by the District Revenue Officer-cum vide its Award dated 17.07.2023 granting the benefit of similar compensation @ Rs.31,71,000/- per acre in favour of the In the meanwhile, Regular First Appeals preferred at the instance of landowners arising out of the orders dated 26.08.2014 and 06.12.2017 passed by the learned Reference Court came to be finally adjudicated upon by this Court vide its decision dated 15.11.2021 passed in RFA No.3000 of 2016 and RFA whereby the market value of the land assessed @ Rs.44,69,547/- per acre and the remaining landowners of the acquired land were found entitled to the market e petitioners is that once the Land Acquisition the Reference Petitions(s) under Section 18 of the 1894 aforementioned RFA No.3000 of 2016 2 acre for aforesaid Award passed certain other landowners filed separate Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the 1894 Act before the learned Addl. District Judge, Rohtak- Those Reference Petitions thereby . Based thereupon, the A of the 1894 Act seeking cum- granting the in favour of the In the meanwhile, Regular First Appeals preferred at the instance of landowners arising out of the orders dated 26.08.2014 and 06.12.2017 passed by the learned Reference Court came to be finally adjudicated upon by this Court and RFA whereby the market value of the land per acre and entitled to the market e petitioners is that once the Land Acquisition the Reference Petitions(s) under Section 18 of the 1894 aforementioned RFA No.3000 of 2016 MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.15 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CWP No.23500 of 2023 (O&M) and RFA No.10335 of 2014 was to be adjudicated upon 14.11.2022 passed in RFA No.3000 of 2016 and RFA No.10335 of 2014 respectively. In support learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the decision dated 12.12.2017 passed in the case of Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., para nos.16 and 17 thereof are extracted hereunder: 16. application is maintainable, in the instant case, unfortunately, the High Court omitted to take note of the fact that the appeals on the relied on awards were pending when the Section 28A application was decided. That is the spec also be kept in mind that Section 28A is a beneficial provision. 17. The Section 28A application dated 31.12.1992 based on the awards in LAR Nos. 123 and 129 of 1983 was decided on 25.10.2000 when the appeals therefrom were pending. The Collector ought to have kept the application pending till the appeals were decided o principle, the High Court is correct and justified in the view taken in the impugned judgment that there cannot be successive applications under Section 28A in view of Pradeep Kumari (supra). But that is not the point arising for considera 27.05.2009 for re maintainable. However, since the Collector is also at fault in deciding the application when the matter was pending in appeal, we a in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the application dated 31.12.1992 should be considered afresh. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as follows. The Land Acquisition Collector is directed to consider afresh the Section 28A ap the judgment of the High Court dated 23.03.2009 in First Appeal Nos.569 and 570 of 1997 on the file of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. For enabling the Collector to pass orders as ab No.23500 of 2023 (O&M) and RFA No.10335 of 2014, the application under adjudicated upon on the basis of decision passed in RFA No.3000 of 2016 and RFA No.10335 of 2014 In support learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the decision ated 12.12.2017 passed in the case of Bharatsing S/o Gulabsingh Jakhad & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported as 2018(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 497 para nos.16 and 17 thereof are extracted hereunder: 16. Though there is no quarrel with the pr application is maintainable, in the instant case, unfortunately, the High Court omitted to take note of the fact that the appeals on the relied on awards were pending when the Section 28A application was decided. That is the special and distinctive factual position in the instant case. It must also be kept in mind that Section 28A is a beneficial provision. 17. The Section 28A application dated 31.12.1992 based on the awards in LAR Nos. 123 and 129 of 1983 was decided on 25.10.2000 when the appeals therefrom were pending. The Collector ought to have kept the application pending till the appeals were decided o principle, the High Court is correct and justified in the view taken in the impugned judgment that there cannot be successive applications under Section 28A in view of Pradeep Kumari (supra). But that is not the point arising for consideration here. No doubt, the second application dated 27.05.2009 for re-fixation in light of the appellate court judgment is not maintainable. However, since the Collector is also at fault in deciding the application when the matter was pending in appeal, we a in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the application dated 31.12.1992 should be considered afresh. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as follows. The Land Acquisition Collector is directed to consider afresh the Section 28A application dated 31.12.1992 and pass orders in the light of the judgment of the High Court dated 23.03.2009 in First Appeal Nos.569 and 570 of 1997 on the file of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. For enabling the Collector to pass orders as ab , the application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act on the basis of decisions dated 15.11.2021 and passed in RFA No.3000 of 2016 and RFA No.10335 of 2014 In support learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the decision Bharatsing S/o Gulabsingh Jakhad & Ors. 2018(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 497. Relevant para nos.16 and 17 thereof are extracted hereunder:- Though there is no quarrel with the principle that only a single application is maintainable, in the instant case, unfortunately, the High Court omitted to take note of the fact that the appeals on the relied on awards were pending when the Section 28A application was decided. That ial and distinctive factual position in the instant case. It must also be kept in mind that Section 28A is a beneficial provision. 17. The Section 28A application dated 31.12.1992 based on the awards in LAR Nos. 123 and 129 of 1983 was decided on 25.10.2000 when the appeals therefrom were pending. The Collector ought to have kept the application pending till the appeals were decided on 23.03.2009. On principle, the High Court is correct and justified in the view taken in the impugned judgment that there cannot be successive applications under Section 28A in view of Pradeep Kumari (supra). But that is not the point tion here. No doubt, the second application dated fixation in light of the appellate court judgment is not maintainable. However, since the Collector is also at fault in deciding the application when the matter was pending in appeal, we are of the view that in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the application dated 31.12.1992 should be considered afresh. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as follows. The Land Acquisition Collector is directed to consider afresh the plication dated 31.12.1992 and pass orders in the light of the judgment of the High Court dated 23.03.2009 in First Appeal Nos.569 and 570 of 1997 on the file of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. For enabling the Collector to pass orders as above, the order 3 A of the 1894 Act and passed in RFA No.3000 of 2016 and RFA No.10335 of 2014 In support learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the decision Bharatsing S/o Gulabsingh Jakhad & Ors. Relevant inciple that only a single application is maintainable, in the instant case, unfortunately, the High Court omitted to take note of the fact that the appeals on the relied on awards were pending when the Section 28A application was decided. That ial and distinctive factual position in the instant case. It must 17. The Section 28A application dated 31.12.1992 based on the awards in LAR Nos. 123 and 129 of 1983 was decided on 25.10.2000 when the appeals therefrom were pending. The Collector ought to have kept the n 23.03.2009. On principle, the High Court is correct and justified in the view taken in the impugned judgment that there cannot be successive applications under Section 28A in view of Pradeep Kumari (supra). But that is not the point tion here. No doubt, the second application dated fixation in light of the appellate court judgment is not maintainable. However, since the Collector is also at fault in deciding the re of the view that in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the application dated 31.12.1992 should be considered afresh. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as follows. The Land Acquisition Collector is directed to consider afresh the plication dated 31.12.1992 and pass orders in the light of the judgment of the High Court dated 23.03.2009 in First Appeal Nos.569 and 570 of 1997 on the file of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at ove, the order MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.15 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CWP No.23500 of 2023 (O&M) dated 25.10.2000 is set aside. However, the amounts already paid are to be duly adjusted. [5]. Learned counsel for the petitioners should also have been awarded the benefits of market value in terms of decision dated 14 was passed even during pendency of the reference petition before respondent No.3 Land Acquisition Collector. [6]. On the other hand, submit that the alternate remedy of invoking Section 28 available to the petitioners against the order dated District Revenue Officer present Writ Petition [7]. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak was already party in and RFA No.10335 of 2014 in Bharatsing S/o Gulabsingh Jakhad & Ors.’ upon the Reference under Section 28 of landowners should have been 14.11.2022 passed in RFA No.3000 of 2016 and RFA No.10335 of 2014 respectively, by this Rs.41,38,740/- per acre in favour of petitioners [8]. In view of is disposed of. Rohtak is directed to consider t No.23500 of 2023 (O&M) dated 25.10.2000 is set aside. However, the amounts already paid are to be duly adjusted.” Learned counsel for the petitioners have been awarded the benefits of market value in terms of 14.11.2022 passed by this Court in RFA No. was passed even during pendency of the reference petition before respondent No.3 Land Acquisition Collector. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the submit that the alternate remedy of invoking Section 28 available to the petitioners against the order dated District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Roh Writ Petition is not maintainable. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak was already party in and RFA No.10335 of 2014; in terms of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court ing S/o Gulabsingh Jakhad & Ors.’ upon the Reference under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act, preferred at the instance of landowners should have been made in terms of decisions 14.11.2022 passed in RFA No.3000 of 2016 and RFA No.10335 of 2014 by this Court thereby granting the benefit of similar market value of per acre in favour of petitioners-landowner In view of the discussion made hereinabove, . The District Revenue Officer directed to consider the application under Section 28 dated 25.10.2000 is set aside. However, the amounts already paid are to be Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submits that the petitioners have been awarded the benefits of market value in terms of latest by this Court in RFA No.10335 of 2014 which was passed even during pendency of the reference petition before respondent No.3 learned counsel representing the respondents submit that the alternate remedy of invoking Section 28-A(3) of the 1894 Act was available to the petitioners against the order dated 17.07.2023 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak, and thus the Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in the present case, once the Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak was already party in RFA No.3000 of 2016 in terms of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court ing S/o Gulabsingh Jakhad & Ors.’ case (supra), the adjudication A of the 1894 Act, preferred at the instance made in terms of decisions dated 15.11.2021 and 14.11.2022 passed in RFA No.3000 of 2016 and RFA No.10335 of 2014 Court thereby granting the benefit of similar market value of landowners. discussion made hereinabove, the present writ petition The District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act 4 dated 25.10.2000 is set aside. However, the amounts already paid are to be submits that the petitioners latest which was passed even during pendency of the reference petition before respondent No.3- respondents A(3) of the 1894 Act was passed by the , and thus the n the present case, once RFA No.3000 of 2016 in terms of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court , the adjudication A of the 1894 Act, preferred at the instance dated 15.11.2021 and 14.11.2022 passed in RFA No.3000 of 2016 and RFA No.10335 of 2014 Court thereby granting the benefit of similar market value of the present writ petition Land Acquisition Collector, A of the 1894 Act MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.15 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CWP No.23500 of 2023 (O&M) preferred at the the adjudication made by this Court in RFA No.3000 of 2016 and RFA No.10335 of 2014 decided on thus directed to appear before on 30.10.2025 and thereafter decisions passed in the aforementioned RFAs within four The petitioners months from the date of passing the abovesaid manner, respondent No.3 be liable to pay litigation cost(s) of Rs.1,00,000/ petitioners from [9]. All pending application September 11, 2025 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable No.23500 of 2023 (O&M) preferred at the instance of the petitioners/landowners adjudication made by this Court in RFA No.3000 of 2016 and RFA No.10335 of 2014 decided on 15.11.2021 and 14.11.2022 respectively. directed to appear before respondent No.3-Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak and thereafter the compensation decisions passed in the aforementioned RFAs within four be released the benefit of further enhancement within two (02) from the date of passing of such Award. the abovesaid manner, respondent No.3-Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak shall be liable to pay litigation cost(s) of Rs.1,00,000/ petitioners from his/her own pocket. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No instance of the petitioners/landowners, afresh while relying upon adjudication made by this Court in RFA No.3000 of 2016 and RFA No.10335 15.11.2021 and 14.11.2022 respectively. Both the parties are Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak he compensation be re-determined in terms of the decisions passed in the aforementioned RFAs within four (04) months thereafter further enhancement within two (02) Award. In case the needful is not done in Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak shall be liable to pay litigation cost(s) of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the , if any, shall stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 5 while relying upon adjudication made by this Court in RFA No.3000 of 2016 and RFA No.10335 Both the parties are Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak in terms of the thereafter. further enhancement within two (02) In case the needful is not done in Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak shall to the MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.15 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment