IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

210 Date of Decision:28.11.2025 ASHISH VERMA AND ANOTHER ......Petitioners Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Raj Karan Singh Verka, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Maninder Singh Garcha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pradeep Sharma, Advocate Ms. Priyanka Malik, Advocate and Ms. Mehak Kanwar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

[1]. Short reply by way of affidavit of Sh. Hardeep Singh, Land acquisition Collector, Urban Development, PUDA Bhawan, on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3 has been filed in Court, the same is taken on record.

[2]. By way of present writ petition, prayer has been made for issuance of directions to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to re-determine and award to the petitioners the enhanced compensation pari passu the learned Reference Court Award dated

31.01.2024 passed in LAC No.33 of 2017.

[3]. Briefly stating, in the present case, some land owned by the petitioners, situated within the revenue estate of village Hoshiarpur, Tehsil Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), came to be acquired vide Notifications dated

09.09.2013 and 10.09.2013 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the 1894 Act’) respectively for the public purpose namely for “providing 200 ft. road for Mullanpur to Kurali Junction in Tehsil Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar.” The Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) on 08.07.2015 and the market value was assessed @ Rs.2,20,39,781/- per acre with 10% no litigation benefit;

besides grant of other statutory benefits.

[4]. Being aggrieved thereof, some of the other landowners pertaining to this very acquisition sought reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act which came to be decided on 31.01.2024 and the market value was re-determined @ Rs.3,86,86,925/- per acre along with statutory benefits.

It has been informed that Regular First Appeals with respect to the aforementioned adjudication made by the learned Reference Court are pending before this Court for final adjudication.

[5]. Based on the Reference Court Award dated 31.01.2024, in the meanwhile, the petitioners made an application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act before respondent No.3 on 10.03.2025; the same is pending consideration.

[6]. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that since the other similarly placed landowners have been directed to be released 50% of the enhanced compensation amount as determined by the learned Reference Court vide order dated 22.09.2023 passed by this Court in the Regular First Appeals preferred at the instance of those landowners; as such similar directions be issued to respondent No.3 to release 50% of the enhanced compensation in favour of the petitioners/landowners, in the same terms.

[7]. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel representing respondent No.2 submits that in terms of Bharatsing S/o Gulabsingh Jakhad & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported as “2018(11) SCC 92”, once the Regular First Appeals preferred at the instance of the other landowners qua the determination of market value pertaining to the same acquisition proceedings were pending before this Court, it was appropriate on the part of respondent No.3 to wait for the final outcome rather than adjudicating upon the application preferred under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act filed at the instance of the petitioners/landowners. Relevant paragraphs Nos.15 to 17 of the aforementioned judgment are extracted hereunder:-

“15. In the case of the appellants, when their Section 28A application was decided, based on awards in LAR Nos. 123 and 129 of 1983, the very same awards were pending in appeal before the High Court. However, the Collector proceeded to consider their application and decided the same on 25.10.2000. Thereafter, fresh application under Sectio