169 +170 (3 cases)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-26291-2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 07.05.2026 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corp. Ltd.

........ Petitioner Versus Azad Singh and others ......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present:- Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate and Ms. Surbhi Rana, Advocate for the petitioners.

None for the respondents/ landowners.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

Vide this common order, a bunch of three Civil Writ Petitions, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided together as all have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving identical facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from CWP-26291-2024 (O&M)

2. By way of present writ petition(s), prayer has been made for setting aside of the Award dated 12.06.2023 passed by Land Acquisition Collector-cum-DRO, Rohtak, whereby an application filed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the 1894 Act’, was allowed holding the landowners entitled for enhanced compensation @ Rs.281200/- per acre as assessed by the learned Reference Court.

3. The short ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is that since regular first appeals arisen out of the adjudication made by the learned Reference Court were pending before this Court at the time of passing of the impugned award by the LAC-cum-DRO, Rohtak, the applications preferred at the instance of respondents/ landowners should have been kept pending for awaiting the final outcome of determination qua the market value regarding the subject acquired land.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the paper-book.

5. In the humble opinion of this Court, once the applications preferred at the instance of respondents / landowners in terms of Section 28-A of the 1894 Act stands dealt with and adjudicated upon by the concerned authority i.e. the LAC-cum-DRO, Rohtak, it may not be appropriate at this stage to set aside the said determination. However, a conjoint reading of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Banwari and Ors. versus Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) and Another” reported as 2024 INSC 951, and “Andanayya and Ors. Versus Deputy Chief Engineer and Ors.”, reported as 2026(2) RCR (Civil) 502 makes it manifest that the benefit under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act is not restricted to the determination made by the Reference Court alone, but extends to subsequent appellate adjudications rendered by the High Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court concerning land covered under the same acquisition notification. The period of limitation for seeking re-

determination would commence from the award/judgment forming basis of such claim. Further, by virtue of the doctrine of merger, similarly situated landowners who had not sought reference under Section 18 remain entitled to parity in compensation corresponding to the final determination of market value, and an earlier exercise of remedy under Section 28-A would not operate as a bar against claiming consequential enhancement flowing from a later appellate adjudication. 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 applicatio