State of Haryana Vs Mukhtiar Singh & Another

RFA-2536-2000 with XOBJR-104-CI-2003 (O&M)

1

104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-2536-2000 with XOBJR-104-CI-2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 22, 2026

¶4

STATE OF HARYANA ........Appellant Versus MUKHTIAR and ANR. ........Res p ondents/Cross-objectors

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Abhishek Yadav, DAG, Hary a na

¶6

Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advoc a te for the landowners/cross-object o rs/respondents. ****

¶7

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

¶8

MAIN CASE

¶9

By way of present appeal, ch a llenge has been laid to th e judgment date d 21.01.2000 passed by th e learned Additional Distric t Judge, Faridabad, whereby the reference p e tition filed under Section 28 - A(3) of the Lan d Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ ) by the respondents-landowners, seeking e n hancement of compensatio n was partly allo w ed.

¶10

Bri e fly stating, certain land situa t ed within the revenue estat e of Village Jhar Sentli, Tehsil Ballabgarh, Di s trict Faridabad was acquire d for the public p u rpose for development and u tilization of land as Industria l Sector 58, Fa r idabad vide notification dat e d 26.12.1988 issued unde r Section 4 of t h e Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’ ) assessed the market value at the rate o f Rs.2,40,000/- per acre fo r Chahi-Nehari- M agda-Banjar Quadim and Gair Mumkin land an d Rs.1,50,000/- p er acre for Ghair Mumkin Ta l ab land.

¶11

TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.01.29 14:38 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶12

RFA-2536-2000 with XOBJR-104-CI-2003 (O&M)

¶13

2

¶14

The respondents-landowners, feeling dissatisfied with the award, filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act for seeking enhancement of compensation, however, the same was also dismissed by the Land Acquisition Collector vide order dated 28.08.1998.

¶15

Aggrieved of the aforesaid order, reference under Section 28A(3) of the Act was filed by the respondents-landowners before learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad. Upon issuance of notice, the appellant-State contested the petition while stating that the same was barred by limitation.

¶16

On the basis of pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed on 12.01.2000:

¶17

“1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhanced compensation of the suit land at the rate of Rs.150/- per square yard along with other statutory benefits on the basis of award dated 25.09.1996 delivered by Sh. M.C. Aggarwal District Judge in LAC case No.374/95 titled “Fateh Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana?’ OPP

¶18

Relief.”

¶19

Considering the evidence tendered by

¶20

respondents/landowners as well as appellant-State, learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide award dated 21.01.2000 enhanced the amount of compensation of acquired land to Rs.150/- per square yard. 7. In the present case respondents-landowners have filed crossobjections while pleading that the amount of compensation awarded by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad is inadequate, thereby, seeking further enhancement.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book as well as cross-objections filed on behalf of respondents-landowners.

¶22

TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.01.29 14:38 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶23

RFA-2536-2000 with XOBJR-104-CI-2003 (O&M)

¶24

3

¶25

The acquisition in the present case of land pertaining to the revenue estate of Village Jhar Sentli, Tehsil Ballabhgarh and District Faridabad commenced vide notification dated 26.02.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by award dated 19.12.1991 for public purpose namely for development and utilization of land as Industrial Sector 58, Faridabad. In short, the learned Reference Court while adjudicating upon the reference petition under Section 28-A(3) of 1894 Act preferred at the instance of cross-objectors/landowners awarded the benefit of market value @ Rs.150 per square yard along with other consequential benefits in their favour. It has not been disputed by either of the parties that market value now stands finally determined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its decision dated 10.12.2014 in Civil Appeal No.11042 of 2014 titled as “ Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana” finally assessed at Rs.175/- per square yard. Relevant Para 18 thereof is extracted hereunder:-

¶26

“18. Therefore, the compensation is awarded at the rate of Rs.175/- per square yard in respect of all kinds of land(s) situated in Sector 58 and 59, Faridabad and consequently, the judgment and order passed by the High Court stands modified to the aforesaid extent. On the enhanced amount, the appellants would be entitled to all the statutory benefits.”

¶27

In view of the aforesaid judgment as well as placing reliance upon the decision dated 14.07.2021 rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court

¶28

in Civil Appeal No.2903 of 2021 titled as “Banwari Lal and another vs. State of Haryana and ors. ” appellants are held entitled for market value @ Rs.175/- per square yard along with all other statutory benefit and interest as well as interest on solatium.

¶29

TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.01.29 14:38 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶30

RFA-2536-2000 with XOBJR-104-CI-2003 (O&M)

¶31

4

¶32

Accordingly, the present appeal filed at the instance of appellant-State is dismissed and cross-objection filed at the instance of respondents-landowners is allowed.

¶33

12. Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/cross-objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate applications before the learned Executing Court.

¶34

13. P ending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

22.01.2026

Tejwinder

(HARKESH MANUJA)

J	UDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶39

TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.01.29 14:38 I agree to specified portions of this document

State of Haryana v. Mukhtiar Singh & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana v. Mukhtiar Singh & Another

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

State Ofhy. Vs Raja Ram etc.

State of Hy. etc. Vs Bhiwa & Ors.

Dilbag Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Hari Parkash & Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

State of Haryana Vs M/S Bharat Machine Tools

State of Haryana Vs Chiranji and Ors.