Amar Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 5803 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amar Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 8 December, 2025

180
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH
                              C.M. No. 18314-CWP of 2025 in/and
                              Civil Writ Petition No. 25924 of 2024 (O&M)
                              Date of Decision: 08.12.2025

Amar Singh Malik and others
                                                            .......... Petitioners
                                          Versus
State of Haryana and others
                                                          .......... Respondents

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present:      Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate
              for the petitioners.

              Ms. Komal Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
              for respondent Nos. 1 & 3.

              Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, Advocate
              for respondent No. 2-HSVP.

                                  ****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

CM-18314-CWP-2025

Prayer in the present application moved on behalf of the

applicants-petitioners, is for preponing the date of hearing of main case from

08.01.2026 to an earlier date.

Learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners contends that

similarly situated landowners have already been granted the benefit in

question, thus prayer is for preponing the matter.

Notice of the application.

On asking of the Court, Ms. Komal Sharma, Deputy Advocate

General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 3,

whereas Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of

respondent No. 2-HSVP. They raise no objection against the prayer made in

1 of 6

C.M. No. 18314-CWP of 2025 in/and C.W.P. No. 25924 of 2024 (O&M) [2]

the application.

In view of the above, present application is allowed and with

the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the main case is taken on

board today itself.

MAIN CASE

The petitioners, by way of present petition, seek issuance of

directions to the respondents to pay the compensation of their acquired land,

as per judgment dated 11.03.2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2736 of 2019, titled "Balwant Singh (D)

Through LRs Gurbinder Singh Versus The State of Haryana & Others",

especially in accordance with the terms set out by respondent No. 3-Land

Acquisition Collector, HSVP, Urban Estate, Faridabad (for brevity "LAC")

vide its award/order dated 24.12.2013 (Annexure P-1).

[2] Briefly stating, the land owned by the petitioners, situated

within the revenue estate of Village Ajronda, Tehsil and District Faridabad

was acquired vide Notification dated 03.07.1995 issued under Section 4 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as "1894 Act")

followed by Notification dated 02.07.1996 issued under Section 6 thereof.

An award under Section 11 dated 29.06.1998 was passed by LAC. Being

aggrieved, certain other landowners preferred reference under Section 18 of

the 1894 Act whereby compensation was re-assessed @ Rs.795/- per square

yard vide award dated 13.05.2013 passed by the learned Additional District

Judge, Faridabad.

[3] The petitioners being the landowners relating to the same

acquisition proceedings preferred reference under Section 28-A of the 1894

Act. During its pendency, other landowners, who had earlier preferred

2 of 6

C.M. No. 18314-CWP of 2025 in/and C.W.P. No. 25924 of 2024 (O&M) [3]

reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, wherein compensation was re-

assessed @ Rs.795/- per square yard vide award dated 13.05.2013, assailed

the same. While such appeals were pending, the LAC, vide its award dated

24.12.2013 disposed off the application filed under Section 28-A of the 1894

Act by the petitioners by granted them the benefit of similar compensation

i.e Rs.795/- per square yard having noticed the decision dated 06.10.2010

passed by this Court in the Regular First Appeal No. 2392 of 1997 preferred

at the instance of other landowners whereby though the award passed by the

learned Reference Court was maintained yet the adjudicatory proceedings in

terms thereof were still subjudice.

[4] The petitioners have filed representation dated 14.08.2021

(Annexure P-3) before the LAC for release of the compensation of the

acquired land, but no action has been taken. Hence, the present writ petition.

[5] In the present writ petition, it has been prayed that as an

outcome of the pending adjudicatory process, the compensation now stands

finally re-assessed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its decision dated

11.03.2019 passed in Balwant Singh's case (supra), whereby the market

value of the lands situated in Village Ajronda was assessed @ Rs.1210/- per

square yard, as such the petitioner was also entitled for the same benefit as

awarded to the other landowners relating to the same acquisition proceedings

and thus, the award dated 24.12.2013 passed by respondent No.3 was liable

to be modified.

[6] On asking of the Court, Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, appears and

accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2-HSVP.

[7] Prayer made on behalf of the petitioners has been opposed at

the instance of learned counsel representing respondent No.2 by submitting

3 of 6

C.M. No. 18314-CWP of 2025 in/and C.W.P. No. 25924 of 2024 (O&M) [4]

that the benefits under the award dated 24.12.2013 passed by the LAC

already stood released in favour of the petitioners-landowners and if at all

the petitioners were aggrieved on the point of quantum of compensation, the

remedy available to them was of invoking Section 28-A(3) of the 1894 Act

to seek reference by making an application before the learned LAC.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 thus submits that in the

wake of specific alternative remedy being available to the petitioners, the

present writ petition being devoid of merit was thus liable to be dismissed.

[8] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through

the paper book with their able assistance.

[9] In the present case, undisputedly, the petitioners never ever

preferred any reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act and only claimed

the benefit under Section 28-A thereof. The learned LAC vide its award

dated 24.12.2013 allowed their application with the following observations:-

" Hence, I accept the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel as well as Ld. DDA, HUDA and allow the present application on the following conditions:

1. That the petitioner shall be entitled to the amount of compensation @ Rs.795/- per sq. yards along with all statutory benefits under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners shall furnish their PAN and bank account, indemnity bond/surety bond and affidavit within 15 days from today failing which no further interest shall be paid.

2. That this order of re-determination shall not be applicable in case where the remedy u/s 18 of L.A Act has been availed by the petitioner except the reference petition under Section 18 filed by the petitioner had been dismissed on the ground of delay or they have no right as per revenue record.

4 of 6

C.M. No. 18314-CWP of 2025 in/and C.W.P. No. 25924 of 2024 (O&M) [5]

3. That the petitioners will have to furnish indemnity bond or adequate surety equivalent to amount of compensation re- determined in this case. This Indemnity bond/security shall be operative till the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLPs filed by the landowners/State. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court shall applicable. The petitioners shall abide by the order of any decrease/increase in amount of compensation as and when the same is made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4. That the dealing official shall prepare the claim of the petitioners in the present case after proper verification from the record regarding ownership, land entitlement and filing of reference petition u/s 18 of the Act immediately."

A perusal thereof shows that the LAC though being fully

conscious of the fact that the determination made by learned Reference

Court vide its award dated 13.05.2013 in exercise of powers under Section

18 of the 1894 Act was not final, yet in order to avoid any unnecessary

financial burden upon the respondent-State against statutory interest towards

delay in making payment; rather than awaiting final adjudication, went on to

decide the reference preferred under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act at the

instance of the petitioners-landowners while awarding them the benefit @

Rs.795/- per square yard along with all other statutory benefits. The LAC

vide its decision dated 24.12.2013 directed the petitioners-landowners to

furnish indemnity bond or surety bond for release of re-determined

compensation. Thus, the intent and effect of the decision dated 24.12.2013

by the LAC was clear and explicit to the effect that the petitioners being

landowners were entitled for the benefit of market value, in terms of any

final adjudication made in relation to the same very acquisition and not

merely @ Rs.795/- per square yard as determined by the learned Reference

5 of 6

C.M. No. 18314-CWP of 2025 in/and C.W.P. No. 25924 of 2024 (O&M) [6]

Court.

[10] Be that as it may, once a specific direction was issued by the

LAC with respect to the furnishing of indemnity bond or adequate surety

equivalent to the amount of compensation re-determined/payable to the

petitioners so as to safeguard the rights of the respondents in case of any

reduction of market value during the pending adjudicatory process in appeal

qua the award dated 13.05.2013, the intent and effect of his decision dated

24.12.2013 was never to put the petitioners-landowners to any

disadvantageous position but was merely to bind them and the respondents

on the point of payment of compensation to the landowners in terms of the

final determination. Thus, in such circumstances, the plea raised on behalf of

respondent No.2 with respect to the availability of alternate remedy under

Section 28-A(3) of the 1894 Act was wholly misplaced as no such remedy

was required to be availed in the given facts.

[11] In view of aforesaid discussion, present writ petition is

allowed and the petitioners are held entitled to the award of compensation @

Rs.1210/- per square yard, as directed by the LAC vide its order dated

24.12.2013 and in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in case

of Balwant Singh (supra) qua the final determination of the market value

relating to the present acquisition besides grant of all other statutory benefits

as available under the provisions of the 1894 Act.

[12] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed off.

December 08, 2025                                ( HARKESH MANUJA )
'dk kamra'                                            JUDGE
       Whether Speaking/reasoned                 Yes/No
       Whether Reportable                        Yes/No




                                   6 of 6