IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: January 28, 2026 HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ........Petitioner Versus SATBIR AND OTHERS ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for the petitioner (through video conferencing).

Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to the order dated 08.08.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram whereby respondents/landowners being co-sharers in the acquired land, were found entitled for the award of similar benefits of enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.1,89,72,000/- per acre along with all statutory benefits under the relevant provisions of the Act in accordance with the decision passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.11913-11945 of 2017.

[2]. Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner preferred the present revision petition.

[3]. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the respondents did not choose to prefer reference under Section 18 or 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, they could not have been awarded the benefit of enhanced market value determined in favour of their co-

sharers in the acquired land merely by preferring execution application.

[4]. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book.

[5]. The issue raised by the petitioner now stands finally determined by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of ‘Ramphal & Ors. Vs. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Ors.’ decided on 13.01.2026 by upholding the claims made by of the co-sharers, however restricting the award of interest. The relevant paragraphs Nos.12 to 14 of the aforementioned judgment are extracted hereunder:-

“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 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) authorities, they shall be liable to pay interest @ nine per cent (9%) on the amounts so determined.”

[6]. In view of adjudication made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned case of Ramphal & Ors. (supra), the present petition is thus dismissed. However, as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the petitioner shall disburse the amount of compensation in favour of the respondents/landowners within three months from today. In case the needful is not done, petitioner shall be liable to pay a litigation cost(s) of Rs.50,000/- per month in favour of respondents, over and above the interest ordered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The cost imposed by this Court shall be borne by the official responsible for the delay from own pocket.

[7]. Pending application(s), if any shall also stand disposed of.

28.01.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)

Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No