Punjab-Haryana High Court
Administrator, Huda Now Hsvp, Gurugram vs Mukesh Devi And Ors. on 28 April, 2026
1
CR No.2912 of 2023 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
149
CR No.2912
2912 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision:
Decision:28.04.2026
ADMINISTRATOR, HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(NOW HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN) ......Petitioner
Vs
SMT. MUKESH DEVI AND ORS. ....Respondentss
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ
MANUJA
Present: Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhinav Kalia, D.A.G., Haryana.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)
[1]. By way of present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been laid to the order dated 21.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram-cum-Executing Executing Court, Court whereby respondent Nos.1 No to 5 being co-sharer sharers in the acquired land, were held entitled to the grant of similar benefits of enhanced compensation of Rs.1,81,44,000/-- per acre along with all statutory benefits under the relevant provisions of the Act, Act in terms of the order dated 27.05.2016 passed by this Court in RFA No.7330 of 2014 titled 'Omkar 'Omkar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others' which was decided along with main RFA No.5316 of 2014 titled 'Pushpender Kumar & Others Vs. State of Haryana & another' after making deduction of 15% towards development, as per orde orderr dated 05.09.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.11913 No.11913-11945 11945 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.8094-8126/2017).
Nos.8094 [2]. Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner preferred the present revision petition.
MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.28 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt 2 CR No.2912 of 2023 (O&M) [3]. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner submits that that once the private respondents/landowner /landowners did not choose se to prefer reference under Section 18 or 28-A A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, they could not have been awarded the benefit of enhanced market value determined in favour of other co co-sharers sharers for the acquired land merely by preferring an execution application. [4]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
[5]. The aforesaid legal issue already stands decided 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 No(S).4532 4539 of 2023) 2023), titled "Ramphal & Ors.. Versus Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Ors",, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to uphold the claims made by the co-sharers co sharers with regard to entitlement of similar amount of compensation as granted in favour favour of their co co-owners 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:
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 appearing 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 ew 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 period.. We would also hasten to add that the appellants would be entitled to all other MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.28 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt 3 CR No.2912 of 2023 (O&M) 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) 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."
[6]. In view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present petition being devoid of of merits is hereby dismissed.
[7]. The learned Executing Court is requested to expedite the release of compensation amount in favour of respondent No Nos.1 to 5-landowners 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(s) that respondent Noss.1 to 5 -landowners happened to be the co co-sharers sharers of the applicant(s) who preferred references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and enhancement was ordered in their favour. Respondent No Nos.1 to 5- 5 landowners shall also be entitled to the award of market value which was finally determined with respect to the related acquisition. [8]. A perusal of the office report shows that though respondent No.2, 3, 3 6 & 7 have been served, however service qua respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 could not be effected as respondent No.1 has died. MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.28 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt 4 CR No.2912 of 2023 (O&M) [9]. Though the present revision petition is being dismissed in view of latest exposition of law vide which the point of law involve involved d in the present revision petition already stands determined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramphal's case (supra), however the respondents or their LRs would be at liberty to move an appropriate application before this Court in case, they find any misstatement ent of fact on the part of the petitioner.
[10]. Pending application(s), if any shall also stand disposed of.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
April 28, 2026 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHMED ATIK
2026.04.28 18:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgmemtt