Radhey Sham v. State Of Haryana And Other



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RFA-2687-2021 (O&M) Radhey Sham ...Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Aditya Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3-HSIIDC. ****

Reserved on: 09.02.2026

Pronounced on: 12.02.2026 Pronounced fully/opera7ve part: Fully DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been preferred under Sec5on 54 of the Land Acquisi5on Act, 1894 by the landowner seeking further enhancement of compensa5on, assailing the award dated 13.05.2014 passed by the learned Reference Court of Addi5onal District Judge, Gurgaon 2.

The record reveals that land belonging to the appellant and other landowners situated in village Fazalwas, Tehsil Manesar, District Gurgaon was acquired pursuant to no5fica5on dated 25.04.2008 issued under Sec5on 4 of the Land Acquisi5on Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act"), followed by declara5on dated 09.03.2009 under Sec5on 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisi5on Collector, vide Award No.20 dated 24.08.2009, assessed the market value of the acquired land uniformly at ₹30,00,000/- per acre irrespec5ve of classifica5on.


3.

Dissa5sfied with the compensa5on awarded by the Collector, the appellant along with other landowners sought reference under Sec5on 18 of the Act. The learned Reference Court, vide award dated 13.05.2014, enhanced the compensa5on to ₹62,14,421/- per acre along with all other statutory benefits, including sola5um and interest as permissible under the Act.

4.

S5ll aggrieved, the appellant has approached this Court seeking further enhancement.

5.

At the threshold, it requires to be no5ced that there was a delay of 2185 days in filing the present appeal. An applica5on under Sec5on 5 of the Limita5on Act was allowed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 21.03.2022, subject to the condi5on that the appellant would not be en5tled to any interest for the period of delay. The appeal, therefore, survives only on merits.

6.

On merits, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is no longer res integra. It is contended that several similarly situated landowners, whose lands were acquired through the same no5fica5ons had preferred Regular First Appeals before this Court. A co-ordinate Bench, while deciding a bunch of appeals led by RFA No.4437 of 2014 5tled Kanwar Sain Jain and another vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 30.05.2022, re-determined the market value of the acquired land at ₹1,21,00,000/- per acre for land falling up to a depth of 5 acres on both sides of NH-8 (Delhi-Jaipur Road), while maintaining the compensa5on awarded by the Reference Court for land situated beyond that depth. It is thus argued that the present appeal deserves to be disposed of in the same terms in order to maintain parity.

7.

Learned Addi5onal Advocate General, Haryana, does not dispute that the acquisi5on in ques5on arises from the same no5fica5ons and that the judgment dated 30.05.2022 pertains to the same village and the same award of the Reference Court. However, it is submiEed that the


State may have preferred a Special Leave Pe55on before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that the present appeal may be disposed of subject to the final outcome of any such proceedings. 8.

Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, this Court finds merit in the conten5ons advanced on behalf of the appellant.

9.

The principle of parity and uniformity in land acquisi5on maEers is well entrenched. When lands are acquired through the same no5fica5on, for the same public purpose, and are similarly situated, the determina5on of market value must ordinarily be consistent, unless dis5nguishing features are shown. Differen5ated treatment without ra5onal basis would offend the principles of equality embedded in Ar5cle 14 of the Cons5tu5on of India and would undermine certainty in compensa5on jurisprudence.

10.

In the present case, it is not disputed that the acquisi5on pertains to the same no5fica5ons dated 25.04.2008 and 09.03.2009 and that the award of the Reference Court dated 13.05.2014 was subject maEer of adjudica5on in Kanwar Sain Jain (supra). The co-ordinate Bench, aIer detailed considera5on of the evidence including sale exemplars and loca5on advantages, determined the market value at ₹1,21,00,000/- per acre for land up to the depth of 5 acres on both sides of NH-8 and maintained the valua5on assessed by the Reference Court for the remaining land.

11.

Judicial discipline demands that a co-ordinate Bench follows an earlier judgment concerning the same acquisi5on unless it disagrees and refers the maEer to a larger Bench. No dis5nguishing feature has been pointed out by the State in the present case. Therefore, this Court sees no jus5fica5on to depart from the valua5on already determined for iden5cally situated landowners.


12.

At the same 5me, it must be borne in mind that the delay in filing the present appeal has already been condoned subject to the specific condi5on that the appellant shall not be en5tled to interest for the delayed period. That condi5on con5nues to operate and safeguards the acquiring body from financial burden aEributable solely to the appellant's inac5on. 13.

In view of the above, the appellant is held en5tled to compensa5on for the acquired land in terms of the judgment dated 30.05.2022 rendered in RFA No.4437 of 2014, Kanwar Sain Jain and another vs. State of Haryana and others, along with all statutory benefits as permissible under the Act, except that no interest shall be payable for the period of delay as already directed in the order dated 21.03.2022. 14.

It is further clarified that this enhancement shall remain subject to the final outcome of any Special Leave Pe55on or other proceedings, if pending, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the aforesaid judgment dated 30.05.2022.

15.

The appeal stands allowed in the above terms and is accordingly disposed of.

12.02.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Uploaded on: 12.02.2026