[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
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.
[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
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-
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.
[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
