IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:24.03.2026 HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN (EARLIER HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR, HSVP AT PANCHKULA ......Petitioner Vs JAGDEEP SINGH AND ORS. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Siddhant Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Abhinav Kalia, D.A.G., Haryana for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

****

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 04.03.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri-cum- Executing Court, whereby respondent Nos.1 & 2/landowners being co-sharers in the acquired land, were found entitled to the grant of similar benefits of enhanced compensation in the same manner as ordered to be paid to other landowners/co- sharers vide the Award dated 30.07.2015 passed in LAC No.105 of 2011 titled ‘Teja Singh and anr. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.’

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

[3]. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the private respondents/landowners 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 other co-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 of 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 with regard to entitlement of similar amount of compensation as granted in favour of their co-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:-

“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 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 from the date of such determination.”

[6]. In view of the