[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Estate Officer, Huda (Now Hsvp), ... vs Amarjit Singh And Others on 28 April, 2026
1
CR No.2877 of 2023 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
148
CR No.2877
2877 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision:
Decision:28.04.2026
THE ESTATE OFFICER, HUDA (NOW HSVP), KAITHAL
KAITHAL......Petitioner
Vs
AMARJIT SINGH AND ORS. ....Respondentss
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ
MANUJA
Present: Mr. Deepak
Deepa Sabherwal, 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 13.09.2022 passed
by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal
Kaithal-cum-Executing Court,, whereby
respondent No.1 being a co-sharer
sharer in the acquired land
land, was held entitled to the
grant of similar benefits of enhanced compensation of Rs.280/- per square yards
along with all statutory benefits under the relevant provisions of the Act
Act, in terms
of the Award dated 14.05.2009 passed by the learned Reference Court in L.A. Case
No.261 of 2006 titled 'Jagdev
'Jagdev Singh Vs. State of Haryana.'
[2]. Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner preferred the present revision
petition.
[3]. Learned
earned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the private
respondent/landowner did not choose
se to prefer reference under Section 18 or 28-A
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, he 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
ution 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 with regard
ard to entitlement of similar amount of
compensation as granted in 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
"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 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
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
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) 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 merits is hereby dismissed.
[7]. The learned Executing Court is requested to expedite the release of
compensation
on amount in favour of respondent No.1
No.1-landowner
landowner 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 No.1 -
landowner happened to be the 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.1-landowner
No.1 landowner shall also be entitled to
the award of market value which was finally determin
determined
ed with respect to the related
acquisition.
[8]. Though the present revision petition is being dismissed without
effecting service upon respondent No.1 due to non
non-deposit
deposit of process fee by
learned counsel for the petitioner, especially in view of latest exposition of law
vide which the point of law involved in the present revision petition already stands
determined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramphal's case (supra), however
respondent No.1/landowner would be at liberty to move an appropriate application
before this Court in case, he finds any misstatement of fact on the part of the
petitioner.
[9]. 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
