Hsiidc Ltd vs Sunil Gupta And Ors

CR-1677-2024 (O&M) & connected matters -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(8 cases) CR-1677-2024 (O&M)
Reserved on: 24.08.2026
Pronounced on: 01.09.2026
Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation
Limited …Petitioner
Versus
Sunil Gupta and others …Respondents
With
Sr.
No.
Case No. Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)

2. CR-1706-2024 Haryana State Industrial and
Infrastructure Development
Corporation Limited
Dilawar Singh and others

3. CR-1742-2024 Haryana State Industrial and
Infrastructure Development
Corporation Limited
Vinod Kumar and others

4. CR-1846-2024 Haryana State Industrial and
Infrastructure Development
Corporation Limited
Khazan Singh (deceased)
through LR and others

5. CR-1847-2024 Haryana State Industrial and
Infrastructure Development
Corporation Limited
Vinod Kumar and others

6. CR-1883-2024 Haryana State Industrial and
Infrastructure Development
Corporation Limited
Daya Nand (deceased)
through LR(s) and others

7. CR-1884-2024 Haryana State Industrial and
Infrastructure Development
Corporation Limited
Bhim Singh (deceased)
through LR(s) and others

8. CR-2354-2024 Haryana State Industrial and
Infrastructure Development
Corporation Limited
Hari Chand (deceased)
through LR and others

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: - Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate and
Ms. Surbhi Rana, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Abhinav Kalia, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
Mr. Kunal Dawar, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate,
Ms. Sony, Advocate and
Ms. Chetna, Advocate for the respondents/landowners
*
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J .

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with
the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.09.01 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CR-1677-2024 (O&M) & connected matters -2-
order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from
CR-1677-2024 .

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 16.08.2023
whereby learned Additional District Judge, Sonipat has held that
respondents/landowners are entitled to interest on solatium even prior to
19.09.2001.

3. By award dated 16.11.1994, land of the respondents/landowners
was acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘ 1894 Act ’). It was
transferred to Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development
Corporation Limited (for short ‘ HSIIDC ’) by Haryana State Agriculture
Marketing Board on 23.12.2000. The Reference Court vide award dated
30.11.2000 enhanced the amount of compensation. The landowners filed
Regular First Appeal before this Court which was allowed vide order dated
05.07.2011. The amount of compensation was further enhanced. The
landowners were held entitled to all statutory benefits besides the market
value as per amended provision of Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of 1894 Act.
The operative portion of order dated 05.07.2011 reads as:
“ Taking into consideration the abovesaid
circumstances, the appeals filed by the claimants are
allowed and those filed by the State and HSIIDC are
₹
dismissed and the compensation is enhanced to 210
per sq. yards for the entire land as the land was
originally acquired for New Fruit and Vegetable
Complex but subsequently the same has been handed
over to HSIIDC for industrial purposes. The
classification of land for the purpose of determining
compensation in Chahi, Barani or Banjar would be
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.09.01 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CR-1677-2024 (O&M) & connected matters -3-
immaterial taking into consideration the purpose for
which the same has been acquired. The land owners will
be entitled to all the statutory benefits besides the
market value as per the amended provisions of Sections
23(1) (A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. ”
[Emphasis supplied]

4. The respondents/landowners are claiming interest on solatium
from the date of award i.e. 16.11.1994. They filed execution application which
was allowed vide order dated 16.08.2023 passed by learned Additional
District Judge, Sonipat. HSIIDC is in revision before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Appellate Court
decided Regular First Appeals vide order dated 05.07.2011. In the appellate
order, interest under Section 28 was awarded along with other statutory
benefits. In view of direction of this Court to grant interest, the landowners
became entitled to interest, however, from the date of judgment passed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sundar v. Union of India, 2001(4) RCR (Civil)
727 . The petitioner-HSIIDC does not deny its liability of interest on solatium,
however, it commences from 19.09.2001. Petitioner’s contention is espoused
by judgment dated of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of
India, 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 207; Tamil Nadu Housing Board v . Abdul
Salam Sarkar (Dead) and others, AIR OnLine 2021 SC 259; Central Govt.
of India v. Raj Devi alias Raj Kumari & another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC
3545.

6. Per contra , learned Senior counsel for respondents/landowners
submits that appellate order in their case was passed on 05.07.2011, thus, cut-
off date imposed in Gurpreet Singh (supra) was inapplicable. It was
applicable where execution proceedings had already concluded. In the case of
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.09.01 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CR-1677-2024 (O&M) & connected matters -4-
present landowners, appellate proceedings were pending and this Court
passed appellate order on 05.07.2011. Interest was granted by this Court. As
interest payable under Section 28 was granted, as per judgment of Supreme
Court in Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner and another
v. Shivappa Mallappa Jigalur and others , 2011(5) RCR (Civil) 302 and
Bhanushankar Oghadbhai Mehta (D) by LRs v. Gujarat Industrial
Development Corporation Limited and another , 2018 (13) SCC 722, the
State is liable to pay interest on solatium from the date of award because
judgment in Sundar (supra) made solatium part of compensation. The
petitioner has paid interest on enhanced market value from the date of award
whereas interest on solatium is payable from the date of award i.e. 16.11.1994.
There is no occasion to invoke sunrise clause imposed in Gurpreet Singh
(supra) .

7. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

8. There is no dispute that solatium forms part of compensation for
the purpose of charging interest. Prior to judgment of Supreme Court in case
of Sunder (supra), there was confusion which stood clarified by said
judgment. Relevant extracts of the judgment read as:-
“23. In deciding the question as to what amount would bear
interest under Section 34 of the Act a peep into Section 31(1)
of the Act would be advantageous. That subsection says : "On
making an award under Section 11, the Collector shall tender
payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons
interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall
pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the
contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section." The
remaining sub-sections in that provision only deal with the
contingencies in which the Collector has to deposit the amount
instead of paying it to the party concerned. It is the legal
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.09.01 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CR-1677-2024 (O&M) & connected matters -5-
obligation of the Collector to pay "the compensation awarded
by him" to the party entitled thereto. We make it clear that the
compensation awarded would include not only the total sum
arrived at as per sub-section (1) of Section 23 but the
remaining sub-sections thereof as well. It is thus clear from
Section 34 that the expression "awarded amount" would mean
the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the
provisions contained in Section 23, including all the sub-
sections thereof.
24. The proviso to Section 34 of the Act makes the position
further clear. The proviso says that "if such compensation" is
not paid within one year from the date of taking possession of
the land, interest shall stand escalated to 15% per annum from
the date of expiry of the said period of one year "on the amount
of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or
deposited before the date of such expiry". It is inconceivable
that the solatium amount would attract only the escalated rate
of the interest from the expiry of one year and that there would
be no interest on solatium during the preceding period. What
the legislature intended was to make the aggregate amount
under Section 23 of the Act to reach the hands of the person as
and when the award is passed, at any rate as soon as he is
deprived of the possession of his land. Any delay in making
payment of the said sum should enable the party to have
interest on the said sum until he receives the payment. Splitting
up the compensation into different components for the purpose
of payment of interest under Section 34 was not in the
contemplation of the legislature when that section was framed
or enacted.”

9. In the aforesaid judgment, the date from which interest on
solatium would be payable was not clarified. The Apex Court in Gurpreet
Singh (supra) , though question of interest was not one of the issues involved
yet adverted to said question and clarified as below:-
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.09.01 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CR-1677-2024 (O&M) & connected matters -6-
“54. One other question also was sought to be raised and
answered by this Bench though not referred to it. Considering
that the question arises in various cases pending in Courts all
over the country, we permitted counsel to address us on that
question. That question is whether in the light of the decision
in Sunder (supra), the awardee/decree holder would be entitled
to claim interest on solatium in execution though it is not
specifically granted by the decree. It is well settled that an
execution court cannot go behind the decree. If, therefore, the
claim for interest on solatium had been made and the same has
been negatived either expressly or by necessary implication by
the judgment or decree of the reference court or of the
appellate court, the execution court will have necessarily to
reject the claim for interest on solatium based on Sunder
(supra) on the ground that the execution court cannot go
behind the decree. But if the award of the reference court or
that of the appellate court does not specifically refer to the
question of interest on solatium or in cases where claim had
not been made and rejected either expressly or impliedly by the
reference court or the appellate court, and merely interest on
compensation is awarded, then it would be open to the
execution court to apply the ratio of Sunder (supra) and say
that the compensation awarded includes solatium and in such
an event interest on the amount could be directed to be
deposited in execution. Otherwise, not. We also clarify that
such interest on solatium can be claimed only in pending
executions and not in closed executions and the execution court
will be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of the
judgment in Sunder (September 19, 2001) and not for any prior
period. We also clarify that this will not entail any re-
appropriation or fresh appropriation by the decreeholder. This
we have indicated by way of clarification also in exercise of
our power under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of
India with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation on this
question.”
[Emphasis supplied]
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.09.01 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CR-1677-2024 (O&M) & connected matters -7-

10. In the case in hand, this Court vide order dated 05.07.2011
directed respondent to pay interest. The operative part of the order qua interest
reads as:-
“ Taking into consideration the abovesaid circumstances, the
appeals filed by the claimants are allowed and those filed by
the State and HSIIDC are dismissed and the compensation is
₹
enhanced to 210 per sq. yards for the entire land as the land
was originally acquired for New Fruit and Vegetable Complex
but subsequently the same has been handed over to HSIIDC
for industrial purposes. The classification of land for the
purpose of determining compensation in Chahi, Barani or
Banjar would be immaterial taking into consideration the
purpose for which the same has been acquired. The
landowners will be entitled to all the statutory benefits besides
the market value as per the amended provisions of Sections
23(1) (A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. ”
[Emphasis supplied]

11. From the perusal of above order, it is evident that this Court
ordered to pay interest, however, did not clarify whether interest would be
payable on solatium or not. The Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh (supra)
has adverted to this situation and clarified that if award of the Reference Court
or the Appellate court does not specifically refer to question of interest on
solatium, then it would be open to the Executing Court to apply the ratio of
Sunder (supra) and grant interest on solatium. As per said judgment, the
respondents are entitled to interest on solatium. Now the question remains of
date from which they are entitled to interest. As per respondents, appeal was
decided after 2001, thus, there was no question of pendency of execution on
19.09.2001, thus, they are entitled to interest from the date of award. The
Apex Court in Shivappa Mallappa (supra) and Bhanushankar (supra) has
clarified the issue. As per judgment sunrise clause is inapplicable to their case.
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.09.01 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CR-1677-2024 (O&M) & connected matters -8-

12. In Gurpreet Singh (supra), the Apex Court has clarified that
interest on solatium can be claimed from the date of judgment in Sunder
(supra) and not for any prior period. The order of this Court did not
specifically provide for interest on solatium though there was order for
interest, thus, respondents were entitled to interest on solatium, however, in
the absence of specific direction by this Court to pay interest on solatium, it
was payable from 19.09.2001 as ordered by Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh
(supra) . The Apex Court has denied benefit of interest on solatium where
execution application stands closed. The benefit was granted to pending
executions. The judgments cited by respondents make it clear that execution
application may be filed after decision of Civil Court as well as Appellate
Court. There may be a case were first execution application is filed after
decision of Reference Court and thereafter second application is filed after
decision of Appellate Court where amount of compensation is enhanced by
Appellate Court. It was considered prior to judgment of Supreme Court in
Sunder (supra ) that interest is not payable on additional compensation and
solatium. The Apex Court in Sunder (supra ) clarified that additional
compensation and solatium are part of compensation, thus, interest is payable
on additional compensation and solatium. In Gurpreet Singh (supra), the
Apex Court clarified date from which interest on solatium would be payable.
The Court clarified that where interest on solatium expressly or by necessary
implication is denied, no interest would be payable, however, where award of
the Reference Court or that of the Appellate Court does not specifically refer
to the question of interest on solatium, the Executing Court would be
competent to award interest on solatium, however, from the date of judgment
in Sunder (supra) i.e. 19.09.2001 . The Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.09.01 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CR-1677-2024 (O&M) & connected matters -9-
(supra) imposed cut-off date i.e. 19.09.2001. The said date is applicable to
every case where landowner is entitled to interest on additional compensation
and solatium. It would amount to discrimination if interest on solatium is
granted for the period prior to 19.09.2001 on the ground that appeal was
adjudicated after aforesaid date and denied on the ground that appeal was
adjudicated prior to 19.09.2001. The Supreme Court in Sunder (supra)
clarified that solatium is part of compensation. The Supreme Court in
Gurpreet Singh (supra) clarified date from which interest is payable. The
respondents have relied upon judgment of Supreme Court in Shivappa
Mallappa (supra) and Bhanushankar (supra) . In Shivappa Mallappa
(supra) , the Court has held that direction to pay interest on solatium from
19.09.2001 in no way circumscribes power of the Court dealing with the main
proceedings relating to the enhancement of the compensation. Appeal is
continuation of the original proceedings. The Court has further noticed that
Civil Court had awarded solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% for first year and
@15% from second year onwards, thus, the direction for payment of solatium
with interest had become final. In the present case, there is no direction of
Appellate Court to grant interest on solatium prior to 19.09.2001. The Court
has simply enhanced amount of compensation and awarded statutory benefits.
The Court has not specifically awarded interest on solatium, thus, respondents
are entitled to interest on solatium, however w.e.f. 19.09.2001.
In Bhanushankar (supra) , the Supreme Court has held that
interest on solatium is automatic. In view of judgment of Supreme Court in
Sunder (supra) , the solatium became part of compensation, thus, liability of
interest became automatic. Interest payable under Section 34 is automatic,
however, interest under Section 28 as held by Supreme Court in Major
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.09.01 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CR-1677-2024 (O&M) & connected matters -10-
General Kapil Mehra & others. v. Union of India & another, (2015) 2 SCC
262 is not automatic. It is discretion of the Court to grant interest. The Court
has awarded interest on solatium. There is no cavil to the fact that interest is
payable on solatium, however, as per judgment of Supreme Court in Gurpreet
Singh (supra) , it is payable from 19.09.2001. It would be discriminatory if
one set of landowners are allowed interest just on the ground that their appeal
was adjudicated after judgment in Sunder (supra) or Gurpreet Singh (supra) .
The object of cut-off date i.e. 19.09.2001 is to crystallize, confine and clarify
date from which interest on solatium is payable. The Apex Court in Tamil
Nadu Housing Board (supra) and Raj Devi alias Raj Kumari (supra) has
ordered to grant interest on solatium from 19.09.2001.

13. In the wake of above discussions and findings, this Court is of
the considered opinion that impugned orders deserve to be set aside and
accordingly set aside.

14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.




(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
01.09.2026
Mohit Kumar

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

Date of uploading:01.09.2026
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.09.01 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.