IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 04.12.2025 Bijender Singh and others .......... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana for respondent Nos. 1 & 3.

Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, Advocate for respondent No. 2-HUDA.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

The petitioners, by way of present petition, seek issuance of directions to the respondents to pay the compensation of their acquired land, as per judgment dated 11.03.2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2736 of 2019, titled “Balwant Singh (D) Through LRs Gurbinder Singh Versus The State of Haryana & Others” especially in accordance with the terms set out by respondent No. 3-Land Acquisition Collector, HSVP, Urban Estate, Faridabad (for brevity “LAC”)

vide its award/order dated 19.06.2012 (Annexure P-1).

[2] Briefly stating, the land owned by the petitioners, situated within the revenue estate of Village Ajronda, Tehsil and District Faridabad was acquired vide Notification dated 03.07.1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as “1894 Act”) followed by Notification dated 02.07.1996 issued under Section 6 thereof.

An award under Section 11 dated 29.06.1998 was passed by LAC. Being aggrieved, certain other landowners preferred reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act whereby compensation was re-assessed @ Rs.795/- per square yard vide award dated 21.08.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad.

[3] The petitioners being the landowners relating to the same acquisition proceedings preferred reference under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act. During its pendency, other landowners, who had earlier preferred reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, wherein compensation was re- assessed @ Rs.795/- per square yard vide award dated 21.08.2009, assailed the same. While such appeals were pending, the LAC, vide its award dated 19.06.2012 disposed off the application filed under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act by the petitioners by granted them the benefit of similar compensation i.e Rs.795/- per square yard having noticed the decision dated 06.10.2010 passed by this Court in the Regular First Appeals preferred at the instance of other landowners whereby though the award passed by the learned Reference Court was maintained yet the adjudicatory proceedings in terms thereof were still sub-judicie.

[4] In the present writ petition, it has been prayed that as an outcome of the pending adjudicatory process, the compensation now stands finally re-assessed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its decision dated 11.03.2019 passed in Balwant Singh’s case (supra), whereby the market value of the lands situated in Village Ajronda was assessed @ Rs.1210/- per square yard, as such the petitioner was also entitled for the same benefit as awarded to the other landowners relating to the same acquisition proceedings and thus, the award dated 19.06.2012 passed by respondent No.3 was liable to be modified.

[5] On asking of the Court, Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2-HUDA.

[6] Prayer made on behalf of the petitioners has been opposed at the instance of learned counsel representing respondent No.2 by submitting that the benefits under the award dated 19.06.2012 passed by the LAC already stood released in favour of the petitioners-landowners and if at all the petitioners were aggrieved on the point of quantum of compensation, the remedy available to them was of invoking Section 28-A(3) of the 1894 Act to seek reference by making an application before the learned LAC.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 thus submits that in the wake of specific alternative remedy being available to the petitioners, the present writ petition being devoid of merit was thus liable to be dismissed.

[7] I have heard lea