IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: January 22, 2026 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ......Appellants Versus CHIRANJI AND ORS. ......Respondents/Cross-objectors CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Abhishek Yadav, DAG, Haryana Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for the landowners/cross-objectors/respondents.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 25.07.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby the reference petition filed under Section 28- A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the respondents-landowners, seeking enhancement of compensation was partly allowed.

2. Briefly stating, certain land situated within the revenue estate of Village Jhar Sentli, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad was acquired for the public purpose for development and utilization of land as Industrial Sector 58, Faridabad vide notification dated 26.12.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) assessed the market value at the rate of Rs.2,40,000/- per acre for Chahi-Nehari-Magda-Banjar Quadim and Gair Mumkin land and Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for Ghair Mumkin Talab land.

3. The respondents-landowners, feeling dissatisfied with the award, filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act for seeking enhancement of compensation, however, the same was also dismissed by the Land Acquisition Collector.

4. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order, reference application under Section 28-A(3) of the Act was filed by the respondents-landowners before learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad. Upon issuance of notice, the appellants-State contested the petition while stating that the same was barred by limitation.

5. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed on:

“1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get re-

determination of the amount under Section 28-A (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, if so to what effect?’ OPP

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged?

OPR

3. Relief.”

6. Considering the evidence tendered by respondents/landowners as well as appellants-State, learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide award dated 25.07.2002 enhanced the amount of compensation of acquired land to Rs.150/- per square yard.

7. Aggrieved of the aforesaid award dated 25.07.2002, appellants-State, approached this Court by way of present appeal.

8. In the present case respondents-landowners have filed cross- objections while pleading that the amount of compensation awarded by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad is inadequate, thereby, seeking further enhancement.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book as well as cross-objections filed on behalf of respondents-landowners.

10. The acquisition in the present case of land pertaining to revenue estate of Village Jhar Sentli, Tehsil Ballabhgarh and District Faridabad commenced vide notification dated 26.02.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by award dated 19.12.1991 for public purpose namely for development and utilization of land as Industrial Sector 58, Faridabad. In short, the learned Reference Court while adjudicating upon the reference petition under Section 28-A(3) of 1894 Act preferred at the instance of cross-objector/landowner awarded the benefit of market value @ Rs.150 per square yard along with other consequential benefits in their favour. It has not been disputed by either of the parties that market value now stands finally determined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its decision dated 10.12.2014 in Civil Appeal No.11042 of 2014 titled as “Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana” finally assessed at Rs.175/- per square yard. Relevant Para 18 thereof is extracted hereunder:-

“18. Therefore, the compensation is awarded at the rate of Rs.175/- per square yard in respect of all kinds of land(s) situated in Sector 58 and