Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Vs Chhema Devi… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Vs Chhema Devi… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner; the respondents-landowners' entitlement to the market value finally determined for the related acquisition stands, and the Executing Court is requested to expedite release of compensation in line with the specific directions in Ramphal's case (supra).

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Executing Court could grant the respondents-landowners higher compensation on the basis of judgments rendered in the cases of other landowners, given that the respondents themselves neither filed a Regular First Appeal nor challenged the award of the learned Reference Court. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner's contention is without merit: particularly where the acquisition notification and the determination of compensation arise out of the same proceedings, denial of the same compensation to similarly situated landowners would result in apparent inequity; hence the Executing Court could extend the benefit granted to the co-sharers.

Ratio / Principle

Consistently with Ramphal's case (supra), the respondents-landowners shall also be entitled to the award of market value which was finally determined with respect to the related acquisition.

Key takeaways

The learned Executing Court is requested to expedite the release of the compensation amount to the respondents-landowners while keeping in view the specific and categorical directions issued in Ramphal's case (supra) — by which the Supreme Court upheld parity of compensation but restricted the award of interest — it being undisputed that the respondents are co-sharers of applicants whose Section 18 references resulted in enhancement.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Harkesh Manuja, J., oral, 06.05.2026) dismisses HUDA's revision (CR-1762-2022 O&M) against the Executing Court's order dated 14.02.2020 (Addl. District Judge, Hisar-cum-Executing Court) which granted the respondents-landowners — who had neither filed a Regular First Appeal nor challenged the Reference Court's award — compensation parity with their successful co-sharers (Rs. 724.75 paisa per square yard plus statutory benefits, per RFA-5626-2010 'State of Haryana v. Murti Devi', decided 26.03.2014, with 12% cumulative increase per Supreme Court order dated 22.08.2014 in SLP Nos. 20531-20565 of 2014). Applying the Supreme Court's latest exposition in Ramphal (Civil Appeal Nos. 391-398 of 2026, decided 13.01.2026), the Court holds that where the acquisition notification and determination of compensation arise out of the same proceedings, denial of equal compensation to similarly situated landowners results in apparent inequity. The Executing Court is requested to expedite release of compensation keeping in view Ramphal's specific and categorical directions, under which parity of compensation was upheld but the award of interest was restricted.

CR-1762-2022 (O&M)

139

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-1762-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.05.2026

HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOW HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN) ….Petitioner

Versus CHHEMA DEVI @ CHHIMO DEVI AND OTHERS …Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr. S iddhanth Arora, Advocate for th e petitioner.

Mr. R . K. Saini, Advocate for re s pondents No.1 to 5.

Ms. K omal Sharma, DAG, Haryan a

-.-

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By w a y of present revision petitio n , challenge has been laid t o an order dated 14.02.2020 passed by the Court of learned Additiona l District Judge, H isar-cum-Executing Court, whereby the respondents - landowners were held entitled for award of similar benefit of market valu e at the rate of Rs. 724.75 paisa per square y a rd alongwith other statutor y benefits as was granted to their co-sharers in the acquired land. [2] I hav e heard learned counsel for t he parties and gone throug h the averments m a de in the present petition. [3] In th e present case, there is no d ispute that some of the co - sharers of the re s pondents-landowners prefe r red reference under Sectio n 18 of the Land A cquisition Act, 1894 as well a s the Regular First Appeal s before this Court for enhancement of compen s ation, wherein vide decisio n dated 26.03.201 4 passed in RFA-5626-2010, titled “State of Haryana an d others versus M u rti Devi and another”, the m arket value of the acquire d SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.12 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1

1

CR-1762-2022 (O&M)

land was enhanc e d to Rs. 724.75 paisa per s quare yard, followed by 12 % increase on cum u lative basis as per order dat e d 22.08.2014 passed in SL P No. 20531 to 20565 of 2014 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

[4] The principal contention of petition e r is that respondents neithe r filed Regular Fir s t appeal; nor challenged a ward of learned Referenc e Court. Therefore, learned Executing Court c o uld not have granted highe r compensation o n the basis of judgments re n dered in the cases of othe r landowners. Ho w ever, in view of the latest ex p osition of law by the Hon’bl e Apex Court vid e decision dated 13.01.20 2 6 passed in Civil Appeal No(s).391 - 398 of 2026 (@SLP (C) No(S).4532-4539 of 2023), title d “Ramphal &Ors. Versus Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Ors”, this Court finds no merit i n the contention o f petitioner, particularly whe n acquisition notification an d determination of c ompensation arise out of sa m e proceedings and denial o f same compens a tion to similarly situated landowners would result i n apparent inequit y . In Ramphal’s case (supra ) the Hon’ble Supreme Cour t has been please d to uphold the claims made b y the co-sharers with regar d to entitlement of similar amount of compens a tion as granted in favour o f their co-owners in the acquired land, howe v er, restricted the award o f interest. Releva n t paras 11 to 14 from the aforesaid decision date d 13.01.2026 are e x tracted hereunder:-

“11. In fact, we have been inf o rmed at the Bar by the learne d counsel appearing for the appellants, which is not seriousl y disputed by the learned s enior counsel appearing for th e respondents, the fact that the land which was acquired, ha s been utilized for the purpo s es of formation of industrial site s and allotted to the needy persons in accordance with th e Rules then prevalent. In other words, the acquiring body i s also benefited to certain e x tent, which is an instrumentality o f

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.12 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2

CR-1762-2022 (O&M)

the State. Thus, the sca l es have to be balanced in thi s scenario.

12. We are of the consid e red view that apart from th e compensation, the appe ll ants would be entitled to th e interest for a period of five years to be reckoned from toda y backwards and we make i t explicitly clear that the appellant s are not entitled for any i n terest for any other period. W e would also hasten to a d d that the appellants would b e entitled to all other conse q uential benefits which flow fro m award of compensation a nd the respondent(s) authoritie s shall compute the compen s ation as has been determined b y the award passed unde r Section 18 of the Act and/o r modified by the High C o urt or this Court in exercise o f appellate jurisdiction.

13. The said determination s h all be made by the authoritie s expeditiously and at any r ate within an outer limit of thre e months from the date of this order and the amounts s o determined shall be disbu r sed within an outer limit of thre e months for such determi n ation with interest as specifie d therein.

14. In the event of time line w h ich has been fixed by this Court i s not adhered to by the resp o ndent(s) authorities, they shall b e liable to pay interest @ ni n e per cent (9%) on the amount s so determined from the da t e of such determination.”

[5] In v iew of the aforesaid decisi o n rendered by the Hon’bl e Supreme Court, the present petition being devoid of merits is hereb y dismissed.

[6] The le a rned Executing Court is req u ested to expedite the releas e of compensatio n amount in favour of re s pondents-landowners whil e keeping in view the specific and categoric dir e ctions issued in Ramphal’s case (supra), e s pecially when it has not be e n disputed by the petitione r that the respondents-landowners happened to be the co-sharers of th e applicants who preferred references unde r Section 18 of the Lan d Acquisition Act, 1 894 and enhancement was ordered in their favour. Th e

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.12 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3

CR-1762-2022 (O&M)

respondents-landowners shall also be entitled to the award of market valu e which was finally determined with respect to t h e related acquisition.

[7] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stan d

disposed of.

06.05.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sanjay JUDGE

Whet h er speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whet h er Reportable? Yes/No

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.12 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

4