Dinesh Rana And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP-19514-2026 Date of Decision: 01.07.2026 DINESH RANA AND OTHERS

...Petitioners

Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Dr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate and Ms. Kritika Mandhan, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Abhinav Kalia, DAG Haryana Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate for Mr. H.S. Gill, Advocate for respondent-HSVP *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioners through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking direction to respondents to grant enhanced compensation along with statutory benefits, interest and interest on solatium with respect to land acquired of Village Sultanpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat.

2.

As per pleadings, the petitioners were owners of land in village Sultanpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat. It was acquired vide award dated 05.11.1995 passed by Land Acquisition Collector. Father of the petitioners along with other land owners filed reference application under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Ld. ADJ, Sonepat vide award dated 10.08.2001 disposed of the said reference. The said award came to be challenged by other land owners before this Court by way of multiple DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.01 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-19514-2026 -2appeals including RFA-2453-2000 wherein the compensation was enhanced to ₹200/- per square yard. The land of adjoining village Kamaspur was also acquired for the same purpose and compensation of said land has been assessed by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2026 in RFA-2188-2004 @ ₹331/- per sq. yard.

3.

Learned counsel for petitioners, on being confronted with the fact that this Court with respect to notification concerning petitioners has already passed order dated 30.05.2007 whereby compensation was enhanced to ₹200/- per square yard and order dated 18.03.2026 passed in RFA/2188/2004 relates to a different notification, expressed his inability to controvert the said fact.

4.

The petitioners' case is covered by order dated 30.05.2007 passed in RFA/2453/2000. Their matter stands settled. They are now relying on order of this Court which is unrelated to them. They cannot take benefit of subsequent orders especially of different notification. 5.

Dismissed.

6.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE July 01, 2026 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.01 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment