Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Through Its Administrator At Gurugram v. Kamal Kishore And Others

IN THE HIGH C

COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH of Decision: March 19, 2026 Date o EHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN TOR AT GURUGRAM N THROUGH ITS HARYANA SHE ADMINISTRAT KAMAL KISHO CORAM: HON

Present:

Mr.

Mr.

HARKESH MA ........Petitioner r

Versus

ORE AND OTHERS ......Respondents N'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKE ESH MANUJA Shivendra Swaroop, Advoca Siddhanth Arora, Advocate fo ate and or the petitioner.

**** ANUJA, J. (ORAL) [1].

By w way of present revision petit ion filed under Article 227 of f the Constitution n of India, challenge has b een laid to the order dated d 15.10.2015 pas ssed by the learned Addition al District Judge, Gurugram- - cum-Executing Court, whereby respondent Nos.1 to 9/landowners being g co-sharers in th he acquired land, were found entitled to the grant of similar r benefits of enh hanced compensation of Rs.1 1,06,48,000/- per acre along g with all statutory y benefits under the relevant provisions of the Act.

[2].

Bein ng aggrieved thereof, the pet titioner preferred the present t revision petition n.

[3].

Lea arned counsel for the petitio oner submits that once the e private respond dents/landowners did not choo ose to prefer reference under r Section 18 or 28-A of the Land Acquisitio on Act, 1894, they could not t have been awa arded the benefit of enhanced d market value determined in n favour of other co-sharers for the acquired land merely by preferring an n execution applic cation.

-2- [4].

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

[5].

The aforesaid legal issue already stands decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide decision dated 13.01.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No(s).391 - 398 of 2026 (@slp (C) No(S).4532-4539 of 2023), titled "Ramphal & Ors. Versus Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Ors", wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to uphold the claims made by the co-sharers with regard to entitlement of similar amount of compensation as granted in favour of their co-owners in the acquired land, however, restricted the award of interest. Relevant paras 11 to 14 from the aforesaid decision dated 13.01.2026 are extracted hereunder:- "11.

In fact, we have been informed at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, which is not seriously disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, the fact that the land which was acquired, has been utilized for the purposes of formation of industrial sites and allotted to the needy persons in accordance with the Rules then prevalent. In other words, the acquiring body is also benefited to certain extent, which is an instrumentality of the State. Thus, the scales have to be balanced in this scenario. 12.

We are of the considered view that apart from the compensation, the appellants would be entitled to the interest for a period of five years to be reckoned from today backwards and we make it explicitly clear that the appellants are not entitled for any interest for any other period. We would also hasten to add that the appellants would be entitled to all other consequential benefits which flow from award of compensation and the respondent(s) authorities shall compute the compensation as has been determined by the award passed under Section 18 of the Act and/or modified by the High Court or this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

13.

The said determination shall be made by the authorities expeditiously and at any rate within an outer limit of three months from

-3the date of this order and the amounts so determined shall be disbursed within an outer limit of three months for such determination with interest as specified therein.

14.

In the event of time line which has been fixed by this Court is not adhered to by the respondent(s) authorities, they shall be liable to pay interest @ nine per cent (9%) on the amounts so determined from the date of such determination."

[6].

In view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.

[7].

The learned Executing Court is requested to expedite the release of compensation amount in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 9landowners while keeping in view the specific and categoric directions issued in Ramphal's case (supra), especially when it has not been disputed by the petitioner(s) that respondent Nos.1 to 9-landowners happened to be the co-sharers of the applicant(s) who preferred references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and enhancement was ordered in their favour. Respondent Nos.1 to 9landowners shall also be entitled to the award of market value which was finally determined with respect to the related acquisition. [8].

Pending application(s), if any shall also stand disposed of. 19.03.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No