Partly allowed

State of Haryana and Another v. Ripudaman Alias Rohit and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Feb 2026RFA/806/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of 15 Regular First Appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arising from the same acquisition. It allowed landowners' appeals for uniform compensation of ₹3,27,06,044/- per acre plus statutory benefits as per a coordinate bench judgment, while dismissing the State's appeals.

What did the court decide?

Landowners' appeals allowed with market value of ₹3,27,06,044/- per acre plus statutory benefits; State's appeals dismissed.

State of Haryana and Another Vs Ripudaman Alias… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

��

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

RFA-806 -2022 and other connected ma"ers Reserved on: 09.02.2026 Date of decision: 10.02.2026

¶4

State of Haryana and another ...Appellants

¶5

Versus

¶6

Ripudaman @ Rohit and another ...Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶8

Argued by: Mr. Govind Rana, Advocate for the appellant in RFA-3666-2019.

¶9

Mr. Anil Kumar Rana, Advocate for the appellant in RFA-1209-2021, RFA-129-2022 and RFA-2333-2021.

¶10

Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate for the appellant in RFA-2255-2018.

¶11

Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for the appellant in RFA-2530-2018.

¶12

Mr. Rohan Moudgil, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the appellant in RFA-3533-2018.

¶13

Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate for the appellants in RFA-992 & 998 of 2023.

¶14

Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana.

¶15

¶16

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶17

This common order shall dispose of fi2een Regular First Appeals, as tabulated below filed under sec3on 54 of the Land Acquisi3on Act 1894, as all of them arise out of the same acquisi3on proceedings. Five appeals, namely RFA-806-2022, RFA-2589-2018, RFA-2859-2018, RFA-2872-2018 and RFAYOGESH MEHTA2026.02.10 14:41 4630-2018, have been filed by the State of Haryana; whereas the remaining I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document appeals have been preferred by the landowners. The appeals emanate from

¶18

��

¶19

different awards passed by the reference Court Gurugram, pertaining to land of villages Gadoli Khurd, Gadoli Kalan and Basai, Tehsil and District Gurugram on various dates, but all pertain to land acquired under the same no3fica3on and involve determina3on of market value of the acquired land.

¶20

Sr. No.	RFA No.	Appellants	LA Case No.	Date of decision of Reference Court
1	806-2022	State of Haryana and another Vs. Ripudaman @ Rohit and another	621/2017	29.10.2021
2	1209-2021	^{Ashok Kumar Vs. State of} Haryana and another	1308/2017	06.02.2020
3	129-2022	Hari Kishan (since deceased) through his LRs Vs. State of Haryana and another	1309/2017	06.02.2020
4	167-2022	Ripudaman @ Rohit and another Vs. State of Haryana and another	621/2017	29.10.2021
5	2255-2018	^{M/s Oxygen Realtors Private} Limited Vs. State of Haryana and others	71/2017	04.12.2017
6	2530-2018	^{M/s Prime I.T. Solu3on Pvt. Ltd} Vs. State of Haryana and another	618/2015	20.11.2017
7	2333-2021	^{Ved Parkash Vs. State of Haryana} and another	1307/2017	06.02.2020
8	2589-2018	^{State of Haryana and another} Vs. Sanjeev and another	83/2016	04.12.2017
9	2859-2018	^{State of Haryana and another} Vs. M/s Prime I.T. Solu3on Pvt. Ltd	618/2015	20.11.2017
10	2872-2018	^{State of Haryana and another} Vs. M/s Oxygen Realtors Private Limited	71/2017	04.12.2017
11	3533-2018	^{Smt. Neelam Vs. State of} Haryana and others	66/2016	22.03.2018
12	3666-2019	^{Smt. Kastoori Vs. State of} Haryana and another	54/2016	02.04.2019
13	4630-2018	^{State of Haryana and another} Vs. Smt. Neelam and another	66/2016	22.03.2018
14	992-2023	Deepak and others Vs. State of Haryana and others	434/2016	19.07.2022
15 and	998-2023	Sulebhan (since deceased) through his LRs and others Vs. State of Haryana and others	433/2016	19.07.2022

¶21

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.10 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this docu ment

¶22

��

¶23

The record reveals that vide no3fica3on dated 25.05.2010 issued under Sec3on 4 of the Land Acquisi3on Act, 1894, the State of Haryana proposed to acquire land situated in villages Gadoli Khurd, Gadoli Kalan and Basai , Tehsil and District Gurugram, for development and u3lisa3on of the land for residen3al Sector 37-C, Gurugram. The declara3on under Sec3on 6 of the Act was published on 24.05.2011. The Land Acquisi3on Collector passed Award No.36 dated 30.01.2013 in respect of land measuring 66.39 acres in village Gadoli Khurd; and Award No.35 of the same date for land measuring 1.76 acres in village Gadoli Kalan, assessing the market value at ₹1,25,00,000/- per acre. Another Award No.33 dated 30.01.2013 was passed for land measuring 81.47 acres situated in village Basai, fixing the market value at ₹1,50,00,000/per acre.

¶24

Dissa3sfied with the compensa3on awarded by the Land Acquisi3on Collector, the landowners sought references under Sec3on 18 of the Act. The reference Court, by different awards passed on different dates, enhanced the market value of land situated in villages Gadoli Khurd and Gadoli Kalan to ₹1,90,40,000/- per acre, and that of land situated in village Basai to ₹2,62,08,000/- per acre. S3ll aggrieved, both the State and the landowners approached this Court.

¶25

It is an admiHed posi3on that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 18.10.2022 passed in a bunch of appeals led by RFA1528-2018 �tled “Raj Kumari (deceased) through LRs and another vs. State of Haryana and others” , assessed the market value of the acquired land situated in all the three villages at ₹3,27,06,044/- per acre, along with all statutory benefits. The present appeals, though arising out of the same acquisi3on, were not included in that batch.

¶26

In the appeals filed by the landowners, prayer has been made for enhancement of compensa3on in terms of the aforesaid judgment dated 18.10.2022, whereas in the five appeals filed by the State, reduc3on of the market value as determined by the reference Court has been sought.

¶27

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.10 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

��

¶29

Learned State counsel has fairly conceded that the present appeals are squarely covered by the judgment dated 18.10.2022, though it has been pointed out that the State has challenged the said judgment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶30

Once it is conceded that the present appeals arise out of the same acquisi3on and are covered by the earlier judgment of this Court, the principle of parity necessarily applies. Landowners, whose lands have been acquired under the same no3fica3on and for the same public purpose, cannot be treated differently. In the absence of any dis3nguishing feature, uniform compensa3on is required to be awarded to all landowners.

¶31

In four appeals, namely RFA-2589-2018, RFA-2859-2018, RFA2872-2018 and RFA-4630-2018, all filed by the State, applica3ons have been filed seeking condona3on of delay in filing the appeals. The delay in these cases is not substan3al and stands sa3sfactorily explained. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.

¶32

Coming to RFA-806-2022 , the State has raised an objec3on regarding limita3on in seeking the reference under Sec3on 18 of the Act. The reference Court has recorded a categorical finding that although the award was passed on 30.01.2013, no evidence was produced by the State to show that any no3ce under Sec3on 9 or Sec3on 12(2) of the Act was served upon the landowners. It was further found that the compensa3on amount was credited to the bank account of the landowners on 24.10.2014, and the reference was sought on 11.11.2014, i.e. within the statutory period from the date of knowledge. The reference Court relied upon the seHled legal posi3on laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harish Chander Raj Singh vs. Deputy Land Acquisi�on Officer AIR 1961 SC 1500; Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corpora�on vs. Supai Munda & Others 2004 (1) RCR (Civil) 311 and other precedents. Learned State counsel has failed to point out any perversity or illegality in these findings.

¶33

YOGESH MEHTA2026.02.10 14:41 10. A similar objec3on regarding limita3on has been raised by the I attest to the accuracy and

¶34

integrity of this document State in RFA-4630-2018 . In that case also, the reference Court found that al-

¶35

��

¶36

though the award was passed on 30.01.2013, the compensa3on cheques were issued only on 09.05.2015 , and the reference was filed on 04.06.2015 , well within the limita3on period reckoned from the date of knowledge. The State again failed to establish service of any statutory no3ce or actual or construc3ve knowledge of the landowners prior thereto. The view taken by the reference Court is in consonance with seHled law and warrants no interference.

¶37

As regards the objec3on raised by the State in other appeals rela3ng to grant of statutory benefits, the same is wholly untenable. Once the market value is judicially determined, the landowners are automa3cally en3tled to all statutory benefits under Sec3ons 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisi3on Act. There is no discre3on with the Court to deny such benefits.

¶38

In view of the foregoing discussion, all five appeals filed by the State of Haryana are dismissed . The appeals filed by the landowners are allowed, and it is held that the market value of the acquired land pertaining to them shall be ₹3,27,06,044/- per acre , along with all statutory benefits, in terms of the judgment dated 18.10.2022 passed in a bunch of appeals led by RFA-1528-2018 �tled “Raj Kumari (deceased) through LRs and another vs. State of Haryana and others”, subject to final outcome of SLP, If any pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, landowners who filed delayed appeals, shall not be en3tled to interest for the period of delay alone.

¶39