IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-6997-2021 Decided on:-02.09.2025 Jai Parkash and others ....Petitioners..

vs.

State of Haryana and others ....Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms.Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)

1. The petitioners, by way of present writ petition, seek issuance of directions to respondent No. 3 (District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, District Jind) for release of the enhanced amount of compensation as per the decision dated 23.04.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by this Court in a batch of appeals, lead case of which was RFA No. 2176 of 2012, titled "Rajinder Versus State of Haryana", and also the decision dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed in identical appeal bearing RFA No. 3586 of 2016, titled "Ram Parshad and others Versus State of Haryana", which pertain to the same acquisition proceedings.

2. Briefly stating, some land owned by the petitioners alongwith the land owned by other landowners belonging to the Village Dumerkha Kalan, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind (Haryana) came to be acquired vide Notification dated 21.11.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "1894 Act") followed by Notification dated

08.12.1997 under Section 6 thereof. The public purpose for acquisition of the land was stated to be for construction of Barsola Feeder. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short "LAC") vide Award No. 4 dated 23.07.1998, assessed the market value of acquired land at the uniform rate of Rs.1,10,000/- per acre.

2.1 Dissatisfied with the Award passed by the LAC, though the petitioners did not prefer reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, however, on petitions filed under Section 18 of the 1894 Act at the instance of other landowners, learned Reference Court vide its Award dated 24.01.2006 assessed the market value at the uniform rate of Rs. 3,00,000/-

per acre besides grant of other statutory benefits.

2.2 Based thereupon, the petitioners invoked Section 28-A of the 1894 Act vide application dated 19.07.2006 and the said petition was disposed of by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 17.10.2008, thereby granting similar market value to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre in favour of the petitioners-landowners. It may be necessary to point out here that during pendency of the petition under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act before the LAC, this Court in Rajinder's case (supra) preferred at the instance of other landowners, modified the award dated 24.01.2006 passed by the Reference Court, thereby enhancing the market value @ Rs.3,78,467/-

instead of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre.

2.3 On coming to know such fact, the petitioners moved another application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act before respondent No. 3 for grant of similar benefits to the tune of Rs. 3,78,467/- per acre as market value. The application was preferred on 10.11.2016, however, the same was dismissed by the LAC vide its order dated 30.05.2017 (Annexure P-5).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once, the market value regarding acquisition in hand was assessed @ Rs.3,78,467/- by this Court having modified the Award dated 24.01.2006 passed in the reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, the petitioners-landowners were entitled for grant of the enhanced market value i.e. Rs.3,78,467/- per acre, besides other benefits and necessary orders in this regard were required to be passed by respondent No. 3.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that once, a petition preferred under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act at the instance of petitioners-landowners stood adjudicated upon vide decision dated 17.10.2008, no fresh application on the basis of re-assessment of market value by this Court in Regular First Appeal was maintainable and if, at all, the petitioners-landowners were aggrieved of the same, they were at liberty to invoke their statutory