State Of Haryana And Another v. Ripudaman Alias Rohit And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RFA-806 -2022 and other connected ma"ers
Reserved on: 09.02.2026
Date of decision: 10.02.2026 State of Haryana and another ...Appellants
Versus
Ripudaman @ Rohit and another
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mr. Govind Rana, Advocate for the appellant in RFA-3666-2019.
Mr. Anil Kumar Rana, Advocate for the appellant in RFA-1209-2021, RFA-129-2022 and RFA-2333-2021.
Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate for the appellant in RFA-2255-2018.
Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for the appellant in RFA-2530-2018.
Mr. Rohan Moudgil, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the appellant in RFA-3533-2018.
Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate for the appellants in RFA-992 & 998 of 2023.
Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana.
**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 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 RFA4630-2018, have been filed by the State of Haryana; whereas the remaining appeals have been preferred by the landowners. The appeals emanate from
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. Sr.
No.
RFA No.
Appellants LA Case No.
Date of decision of Reference Court 806-2022 State of Haryana and another Vs. Ripudaman @ Rohit and another 621/2017 29.10.2021 1209-2021 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another 1308/2017 06.02.2020 129-2022 Hari Kishan (since deceased) through his LRs Vs. State of Haryana and another 1309/2017 06.02.2020 167-2022 Ripudaman @ Rohit and another Vs. State of Haryana and another 621/2017 29.10.2021 2255-2018 M/s Oxygen Realtors Private Limited Vs. State of Haryana and others 71/2017 04.12.2017 2530-2018 M/s Prime I.T. Solu3on Pvt. Ltd Vs. State of Haryana and another 618/2015 20.11.2017 2333-2021 Ved Parkash Vs. State of Haryana and another 1307/2017 06.02.2020 2589-2018 State of Haryana and another Vs. Sanjeev and another 83/2016 04.12.2017 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 992-2023 Deepak and others Vs. State of Haryana and others 434/2016 19.07.2022 998-2023 Sulebhan (since deceased) through his LRs and others Vs.
State of Haryana and others 433/2016 19.07.2022
2.
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.
3.
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. 4.
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.
5.
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.
6.
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.
7.
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. 8.
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.
9.
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. 10.
A similar objec3on regarding limita3on has been raised by the State in RFA-4630-2018. In that case also, the reference Court found that al-
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. 11.
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. 12.
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. 13.
Accordingly, all the fi2een Regular First Appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.
10.02.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Uploaded on: 10.02.2026