Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Vs Yashpal and Others

Present: Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.1522 1 of 2024 and for respondent Nos.3 & 4 in CWP N o.7011 of 2024. Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate with Mr. Bhim Singh, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No.701 1 of 2024 and for private respondent(s)/landowne r s.

¶14

Mr. Abhinash Jain, D.A.G., Harya n a.

¶15

¶16

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

¶17

[1]. Vi d e this common order, CWP No s .15221 and 7011 of 2024 are b e ing decided as both the petitions involve same que s tion of law and facts. For bre v ity, the facts are bei n g taken from CWP No.15221 o f 2024. [2]. By way of present writ petition, c h allenge has been laid to the o r der dated 19.08.20 2 1 (Annexure P-3) passed by t he District Revenue Officer-c u m- Land Acquisiti o n Collector, Gurugram (hereina f ter to be referred as ‘the Refere n ce Court), whereb y the application filed at the i n stance of respondents/landow n ers

¶18

MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.10 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶19

2

¶20

CWP No.15221 of 2024 (O&M) & CWP No.7011 of 2024 (O&M)

¶21

under Section 2 8-A of the Land Acquisition A ct, 1894 (for short ‘the 1894 Act’) stands allowed.

¶22

[3]. Br i efly stating, the land meas u ring 09 Kanals owned by the respondents/lan d owners as co-sharers, situated w ithin the revenue estate of village Kasan, Tehsil & District Gurugram came to b e acquired vide Notification d a ted 26.02.2002 issu e d under Section 4 of the 1894 A ct followed by Award No.6 d a ted 20.05.2004 pas s ed by the Land Acquisition Col l ector (for short ‘the LAC’). [3.1]. Be i ng dis-satisfied of the Aw a rd, few other landowners f i led Reference Petit i on under Section 18 of the 189 4 Act which was partly accepte d by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gurgaon ( L ok Adalat) vide its Award d a ted 14.03.2015 the r eby enhancing market value o f the acquired land to the tun e of Rs.37,47,232/- p er acre along with all statutory b enefits.

¶23

Ba s ed thereupon, the private respondents/landowners prefe r red Reference und e r Section 28-A of the 1894 A ct before the Reference Court on 12.06.2015. W h ile said Reference under Se c tion 28-A of the 1894 Act w as pending consid e ration before the learned Re f erence Court, this Court vide its decision dated 09.03.2018 passed in RFA N o .5434 of 2015 titled ‘Chande r & others vs. Stat e of Haryana & Others’ re-asse s sed market value @ Rs.41.40 l acs per acre. Later in Civil Appeal No(s).264-270 of 2019, the Hon’ble Apex C o urt vide its decisi o n dated 11.01.2019 finally de t ermined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.39,54,666/- per acre along with all statutory benefits pay a ble to the landowners pertaining to the village Kasa n Tehsil and District Gurugram. [3.2]. Re l ying upon the final determin a tion made by the Hon’ble A p ex Court, the Ref e rence Court vide its decision dated 19.08.2021 disposed of the reference unde r Section 28-A of the 1894 A c t, thereby granting the benefi t of

¶24

MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.10 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶25

3

¶26

CWP No.15221 of 2024 (O&M) & CWP No.7011 of 2024 (O&M)

¶27

market value o f the acquired land @ Rs.3 9 ,54,666/- per acre in favour of respondents/lan d owners to the extent of their r espective shares besides awar d ing them the other statutory benefits.

¶28

[4]. Im p ugning the aforesaid Award da t ed 19.08.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner/HSIIDC submits that the applicat i on under Section 28-A of the 1 8 94 Act was preferred at the instance of the respo n dents/landowners after a gap o f 05 years of the A w ard dated 14.03.2015 passed b y the learned Addl. District Ju d ge, Gurgaon (Lok A dalat) thus, the same being ba r red by limitation, was liable t o be dismissed. On t h e other hand, CWP No.7011 o f 2024 has been filed at the instance of private respo n dents/ landowners with the pr a yer that the respondent/HSIID C be directed to release the amount of compen s ation in terms of Award d a ted 19.08.2021 pas s ed by the Reference Court in e x ercise of powers under Section 28A of the 1894 A ct.

¶29

[5]. I h ave heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the p a per book. [6]. Fr o m the facts available on recor d , no case for interference is made out at the inst a nce of petitioner/HSIIDC. The Reference Petition under Sec t ion 28-A of the 1894 Act was preferred a t the instance of the pri v ate respondents/lan d owners on 12.06.2015 based on the Award dated 14.03.2 0 15 passed by the l e arned Addl. District Judge, Gu r gaon (Lok Adalat) in favour of the other similarly placed landowners on their Re f erence Petition(s) preferred u n der Section 18 of t h e 1894 Act and the same was, t hus within the prescribed perio d of limitation of 03 months.

¶30

[7]. On the other hand, once the Awa r d by the learned Reference C o urt under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act was passed in favour of the pri v ate

¶31

MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.10 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶32

4

¶33

CWP No.15221 of 2024 (O&M) & CWP No.7011 of 2024 (O&M)

¶34

respondents/lan d owners on 19.08.2021, the period of more than 04 years has passed, the peti t ioner/HSIIDC is, therefore, directed to ensure its compliance a nd release the am o unt of compensation determin e d therein in favour of the pri v ate respondents/lan d owners, at the earliest.

¶35

[8]. At this stage, learned counsel r e presenting the petitioner/HSIIDC submits that t h e private respondents/landow n ers may furnish their respec t ive account numbe r s to the concerned authorities w ithin 01 week from today an d in case the needfu l is done, the petitioner/HSIID C shall ensure the release of am o unt of compensatio n in their favour within four wee k s thereafter. [9]. In s uch circumstances, both the w r it petitions are disposed of. Par t ies are directed to d o the needful in the aforesaid c o ntext. [10]. Pe n ding application(s), if any shall also stand disposed of.

¶36

(HARKESH MANUJA) September 08, 2025 JUDGE Atik W h ether speaking/reasoned Ye s /No W h ether reportable Ye s /No

¶37

MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.10 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. Yashpal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. Yashpal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaideep Singh and Others Vs Mahip Singh Chadha and Another

Gaushala Talwandi Bhai Vs Collector Land Acquisition and Another

Mehar Singh Vs Pb Govt.

Sanjiv Kumar @ Birbal Vs Ram Rakha Singh

Yashpal and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Pankaj Alais Aman Sharma Vs Rajinder Pal Sharma and Others