IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:25.05.2026 HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN TH. ITS ADMINISTRATOR ......Petitioner Vs LAND ACQUISTION COLECTOR AND ORS ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. H.S. Gill, Advocate and Mr. Parminder Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Advocate for LRs of respondent nos.2 & 3.

Ms. Komal Sharma, D.A.G., Haryana.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

CM No.4474-CWP of 2026 Prayer made in the application is for impleading the applicant(s) as legal representative(s) of deceased/respondent No.2(ii), who died on 15.01.2024.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, subject to all just exceptions and the applicant(s) as mentioned in paragraph No.4 of the application is ordered to be impleaded as legal representative(s) of deceased/respondent No.2(ii) order to pursue the present case.

Amended memo of parties is taken on record.

Main case [1]. By way of present petition, challenge has been laid to the order dated 28.08.2020 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Sector 14, Urban Estates, Gurugram, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the LAC’) whereby the application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the 1894 Act’)

preferred at the instance of the private respondents/landowners was allowed.

[2]. In the present case, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the LAC vide Award dated 31.01.2006 passed under Section 11, certain landowners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved thereof, the decision of the learned Reference Court was assailed by way of RFA No. 5309 of 2011 titled, which was decided on 22.09.2015. Vide the said judgment, the compensation was enhanced for the first time to Rs.20,00,000/- per acre along with all statutory benefits. Pursuant thereto, the private respondents filed an application under Section 28-A on 04.11.2015 seeking redetermination of compensation on the strength of the judgment dated 22.09.2015, which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 28.08.2020, holding them entitled to compensation @ Rs.20,00,000/- per acre.

[3]. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, ld. counsel for the petitioner contends that an application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act could only have been preferred within the prescribed period from the date of the award passed under Section 18 of the Act, and not on the basis of any subsequent appellate determination.

[4]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.

[5]. In the humble opinion of this Court, the aforementioned issue is more than settled now by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide decisions rendered in the cases of “Banwari and Others Versus Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) and Another” reported as “2025AIR Supreme Court 165” and “Andanayya and Ors. Versus Deputy Chief Engineer and Ors.”, reported as 2026(2) RCR (Civil) 502. Relevant portion of both the judgments are reproduced hereunder:

Banwari’s case (supra)

“15. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the First Appeal which was allowed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 2nd May 2016 was in respect of the land which was covered by the same notification under which notification the appellants' land is also covered. It is also not in dispute that the amount awarded by the High Court in the said First Appeal is in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the 1894 Act in the case of the land of the appellants. It is also not in dispute that the appellants had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. It is also not in dispute that the application made by the appellants under Section 28A of the 1894 Act to the Collector was within a period of three months from the date of the judgment and order of the High Court.

16. From the perusal of the judgment of this