Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd vs Satyanarain Singh & Others

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

236 RFA-493-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.09.2026

HSIIDC LTD. ...Appellant
Versus

SATYANARAIN SINGH & ORS. ...Respondents

And
Sr.
No.
Case Number Appellant(s) Respondent(s)

2. RFA-433-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Sunder Lal & Ors.

3. RFA-439-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Rajender Yadav @ Rajender & Ors.

4. RFA-441-2025 (O&M) Hukam Chand (Deceased) through
HSIIDC Ltd.
LRs & Ors

5. RFA-442-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Mukhtiar Singh & Ors.

6. RFA-443-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Samay Singh & Ors.

7. RFA-445-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Ram Pat & Ors

8. RFA-447-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Birender & Ors

9. RFA-448-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Ram Kishan & Ors.
10. RFA-449-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Ram Pat & Ors
11. RFA-450-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Anita & Ors.
12. RFA-452-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Bishamber Dayal & Ors
13. RFA-453-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Kanwar Lal & Ors.
14. RFA-454-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Data Ram & Ors.
15. RFA-455-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Rai Singh & Ors.
16. RFA-456-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Indrawati & Ors.
17. RFA-457-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Sh. Kanhaiya Lal & Ors
18. RFA-459-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Vikram & Ors.
19. RFA-460-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Ramavtar & Ors
20. RFA-461-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Nawal Singh & Ors.
21. RFA-462-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Krishan Kumar & Ors.
22. RFA-465-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Virender & Ors.
23. RFA-466-2025 (O&M) Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar Yadav
HSIIDC Ltd.
& Ors.
24. RFA-468-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Satish Kumar & Ors.
25. RFA-470-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Kuldeep Yadav & Ors
26. RFA-471-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Surender Singh & Ors.
27. RFA-472-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Dhani Ram & Ors
28. RFA-473-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Veerwati @ Birmati & Ors.
29. RFA-475-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Reena Kukreja & Ors.
30. RFA-476-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Asbir & Ors.
31. RFA-478-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Netrapal & Ors.
32. RFA-480-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Rajpal & Ors
33. RFA-481-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Samay Singh & Ors.
34. RFA-482-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Kripa Ram & Ors.
35. RFA-483-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Naveen Kumar Yadav & Ors.
36. RFA-485-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Namita Pathak & Ors
37. RFA-486-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Smt Sampatti & Ors.
38. RFA-487-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Dara Singh & Ors.
39. RFA-488-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Satish Kumar & Ors
40. RFA-489-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Sonu & Ors.
41. RFA-491-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Shanti Devi & Ors.
42. RFA-492-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Umed Singh & Ors
43. RFA-494-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Ishwar Singh & Ors.
44. RFA-495-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Ram Singh & Ors.
45. RFA-496-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Suresh & Ors.
46. RFA-497-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Satish & Ors.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -2-

47. RFA-498-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Jaipal (Deceased) through LRs Ors.
48. RFA-499-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Om Prakash & Ors.
49. RFA-500-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Banwari Lal Yadav & Ors
50. RFA-502-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Rampal & Ors.
51. RFA-503-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Narender & Ors
52. RFA-504-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Babu Lal & Ors.
53. RFA-505-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Reena & Ors.
54. RFA-506-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Samay Singh & Ors.
55. RFA-507-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Dharam Singh & Ors.
56. RFA-508-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Satish Kumar & Ors.
57. RFA-509-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Urmila Devi & Ors
58. RFA-510-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Dharambir Singh & Ors.
59. RFA-513-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Samoti Devi & Ors.
60. RFA-514-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Ganga Bishan Gupta & Ors.
61. RFA-515-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Satyavati & Ors.
62. RFA-518-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Lal Chand & Ors.
63. RFA-521-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Rinku & Ors.
64. RFA-522-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Hem Chand & Ors.
65. RFA-525-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Santosh & Ors.
66. RFA-594-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Rajaram & Ors.
67. RFA-595-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. M/s Krishna Buildtech Ltd & Ors.
68. RFA-629-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. M/s Rising Realty Ltd & Ors.
69. RFA-630-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Lal Chand & Ors.
70. RFA-631-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
71. RFA-632-2025 (O&M) Bhoru Ram (Deceased) through
HSIIDC Ltd.
LRs & Ors.
72. RFA-634-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Satbir Singh & Ors.
73. RFA-873-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Asbir & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
74. State of Haryana through Collector
RFA-1023-2025 (O&M) Birender & Anr.
Gurugram & Ors.
75. RFA-1035-2025 (O&M) Om Prakash (Deceased)
State of Haryana through Collector
Gurugram & Ors.
76. State of Haryana through Collector
RFA-1037-2025 (O&M) Ramrattan & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
77. State of Haryana through Collector
RFA-1043-2025 (O&M) Ram Pat
Gurugram & Ors.
78. RFA-889-2025 (O&M) Hem Chand & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
79. RFA-892-2025 (O&M) Ram Pat State of Haryana & Ors.
80. RFA-845-2025 (O&M) Ram Singh & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
81. RFA-847-2025 (O&M) Bhoru Ram (Deceased)
through LRs LRs
through LRs
DRO Cum Land Acquisition
Collector Gurugram & Ors.
82. RFA-848-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Dharam Singh
Gurugram & Ors.
83. RFA-849-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
84. RFA-850-2025 (O&M) Dharambir Singh &
Ors.
State of Haryana through Collector
Gurugram & Ors.
85. RFA-851-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Samay Singh
Gurugram & Ors.
86. RFA-853-2025 (O&M) Vidyanand (Deceased)
through LRs & Ors.
State of Haryana through Collector
Gurugram & Ors.
87. RFA-854-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Namita Pathak & Anr.
Gurugram & Ors.
88. RFA-855-2025 (O&M) Rajaram (Deceased)
through LRs & Ors.
State of Haryana through Collector
Gurugram & Ors.
89. RFA-857-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Lal Chand & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
90. RFA-858-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Sonu & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
91. RFA-860-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Rajpal & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
92. RFA-861-2025 (O&M) Dharm Chand(deceased)
through LRs & Ors.
State of Haryana through Collector
Gurugram & Ors.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -3-

93. RFA-862-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Mukhtiar Singh & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
94. RFA-863-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Anita & Anr.
Gurugram & Ors.
95. RFA-864-2025 (O&M) Satyanarain Singh &
Ors.
State of Haryana through Collector
Gurugram & Ors.
96. RFA-865-2025 (O&M) Satbir (Deceased)
through LRs
State of Haryana through Collector
Gurugram & Ors.
97. RFA-866-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Babu Lal & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
98. RFA-516-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Ramrattan & Ors.
99. State of Haryana through Collector
RFA-1132-2025 (O&M) Sunder Lal
Gurugram & Ors.
State of Haryana through Collector
100. RFA-1225-2025 (O&M) Banwari Lal Yadav
Gurugram & Ors.
State of Haryana through Collector
101. RFA-1312-2025 (O&M) Samay Singh & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
102. RFA-893-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Krishna Buildtech Ltd.
Gurugram & Ors.
103. RFA-894-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Rising Realty Ltd
Gurugram & Ors.
104. RFA-904-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Ankur Buildcon Ltd
Gurugram & Ors.
105. RFA-542-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Lal Chand
Gurugram & Ors.
106. RFA-544-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Santosh
Gurugram & Ors.
107. RFA-586-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Kripa Ram & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
108. RFA-599-2025 (O&M) Jaipal (Deceased)
through LRs & Ors.
State of Haryana through Collector
Gurugram & Ors.
109. RFA-608-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Dhani Ram & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
110. RFA-611-2025 (O&M) M/s Shivansh Land
Developers Pvt Ltd
State of Haryana through Collector
Gurugram & Ors.
111. RFA-616-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Ishwar Singh & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
112. RFA-617-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Mukatpal & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
113. RFA-619-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Kuldeep Yadav & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
114. RFA-620-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Smt Sampatti & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
State of Haryana through Collector
115. RFA-1064-2025 (O&M) Bishamber Dayal
Gurugram & Ors.
116. RFA-621-2025 (O&M) Smt Krishna Devi alias
Krishna Yadav & Ors.
State of Haryana through Collector
Gurugram & Anr.
117. RFA-622-2025 (O&M) Smt Indrawati alias
Indrawati Devi & Ors.
State of Haryana through Collector
Gurugram & Ors.
118. RFA-623-2025 (O&M) Smt Samoti Devi &
Ors.
State of Haryana through Collector
Gurugram & Ors.
119. RFA-637-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Suresh
Gurugram & Ors.
120. RFA-144-2025 (O&M) Bhoru Ram (Deceased) through
HSIIDC Ltd.
LRs & Ors.
121. RFA-624-2025 (O&M) Smt. Urmila Devi alias
Urmila Yadav
State of Haryana through Collector
Gurugram & Ors.
122. RFA-625-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Nawal Singh & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
123. RFA-626-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Samay Singh & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
124. RFA-627-2025 (O&M) Surender Singh alias
Surender Singh Yadav
& Ors.
State of Haryana through Collector
Gurugram & Ors.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -4-

125. RFA-633-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. M/s Ankur Buildtech Ltd & Ors.
126. RFA-628-2025 (O&M) Rampal State of Haryana & Ors.
127. RFA-636-2025 (O&M) M/S Trinity Hospitality
& Infrastructure & Anr.
State of Haryana through Collector
Gurugram & Ors.
128. RFA-638-2025 (O&M) Smt. Veerwati alias
Birmati & Ors.
State of Haryana through Collector
Gurugram & Ors.
129. RFA-640-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Krishan Kumar & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
130. RFA-635-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Vidyanand & Ors.
131. RFA-641-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Rai Singh
Gurugram & Ors.
132. RFA-766-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Dinesh & Ors.
133. RFA-663-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Narender & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
134. RFA-666-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Surender Kumar & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
135. RFA-923-2026 (O&M) Ravinder Kumar & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
136. RFA-672-2025 (O&M) Naveen Kumar Yadav
State of Haryana & Ors.
& Ors.
137. RFA-674-2025 (O&M) Virender Alias Virender
Singh & Ors.
State of Haryana through Collector
Gurugram & Ors.
138. RFA-678-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Satish & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
139. RFA-682-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Smt Shanti Devi & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
140. RFA-702-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Satish Kumar & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
141. RFA-703-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Data Ram & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
142. RFA-704-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Kanwar Lal
Gurugram & Ors.
143. RFA-712-2025 (O&M) Netrapal @ Netar Pal &
Ors.
State of Haryana through Collector
Gurugram & Ors.
144. RFA-713-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Vikram & Anr.
Gurugram & Ors.
145. RFA-714-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Reena & Anr.
Gurugram & Ors.
146. RFA-722-2025 (O&M) Regal Hospitality
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
State of Haryana through Collector
Gurugram & Ors.
147. RFA-724-2025 (O&M) Satyanarian Singh &
Ors.
State of Haryana through Collector
Gurugram & Ors.
148. RFA-725-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Dara Singh & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
149. RFA-729-2025 (O&M) Ganga Bishan Gupta &
Anr.
State of Haryana through Collector
Gurugram & Ors.
150. RFA-730-2025 (O&M) Sunil Kumar Alias
Sunil Kumar Yadav &
Ors.
State of Haryana through Collector
Gurugram & Ors.
151. RFA-761-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Ramavtar & Anr.
Gurugram & Ors.
152. RFA-769-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Sobha Devi
Gurugram & Ors.
153. RFA-774-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Satish Kumar & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
154. RFA-784-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Ram Kishan & Anr.
Gurugram & Ors.
155. RFA-790-2025 (O&M) Bhim Singh (Deceased)
through LRs & Ors.
State of Haryana through Collector
Gurugram & Ors.
156. RFA-792-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Chandan Lal & Ors.
Gurugram & Ors.
157. RFA-795-2025 (O&M) State of Haryana through Collector
Smt. Reena Kukreja
Gurugram & Ors.
158. RFA-440-2025 (O&M) Regal Hospitality Infrastructure Pvt.
HSIIDC Ltd.
Ltd & Ors.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -5-

159. RFA-444-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Smt Sobha Devi & Ors
160. RFA-446-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Rampal Singh Yadav & Ors.
161. RFA-464-2025 (O&M) M/S Trinity Hospitality and
HSIIDC Ltd.
Infrastructure & Ors.
162. RFA-474-2025 (O&M) M/s Shivansh Land Developers Pvt
HSIIDC Ltd.
Ltd & Ors
163. RFA-477-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Chandan Lal & Ors.
164. RFA-467-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Bhim Singh & Ors.
165. RFA-479-2025 (O&M) Smt. Krishna Devi @ Krishna
HSIIDC Ltd.
Yadav & Ors.
166. RFA-490-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Kamal Singh & Ors.
167. RFA-520-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Surender Kumar & Ors.
168. RFA-458-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Dharm Chand & Ors.
169. RFA-463-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Mahavir & Ors.
170. RFA-469-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Mukatpal & Ors
171. RFA-484-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Suraj Kaur & Ors
172. RFA-512-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Satyanarain Singh & Ors.
173. RFA-517-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Ravinder Kumar & Ors.
174. RFA-511-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ltd. Ram Singh & Ors.



CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:- Mr. Pawan Kumar Mutnej, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate with
Ms. Rajdeep Kaur, Advocate for HSIIDC.

Mr. Akshay Kumar Jindal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Bhavya Vats, Advocate, Mr. Vrishank Suri, Advocate
and Mr. Tushar Kush, Advocate for the appellant(s)
( In RFA Nos.493, 594, 632, 766, 845, 847, 848, 849, 850,
851, 853, 855, 858, 860, 861, 862, 863, 864, 865, 866, 873
and 889 of 2025)
for respondent(s) (in RFA-522-2025).


Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sangram S. Saron, Advocate,
for appellant (In RFA-893-2025)

Mr. Sangram S. Saron, Advocate,
Mrs. Roohe Hinda Dua, Advocate,
Mr. Arav Pandit, Advocate,
Mr. Shivam Gandhi, Advocate and
Mr. Akshit Navaney, Advocate
for appellant(s) (In RFA Nos. 904, 894 of 2025)
for respondent(s) (In RFA Nos. 629, 633, 595 of 2025).

Mr. G.C. Shah Puri, Advocate
for the appellant ( in RFA Nos.761 and 774 of 2025 )
for respondent ( in RFAs No.460 and 488 of 2025 )

Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, Advocate for
Mr. Rajat Ahlawat, Advocate for the appellants
( in RFAs No.586, 599, 608, 663, 666, 672, 702, 703, 712,
713, 714, 724, 725, 730, 327 of 2025) and
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -6-

for respondents (in RFAs No.493, 453, 454, 459, 466, 468,
472, 478, 482, 483, 487, 498, 503, 505, 520, 1520 of 2025

Mr. Mahipal S. Yadav, Advocate
for petitioner (in RFAs No.892, 1023 and 1043 of 2025)

Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Advocate
for appellants (in RFA-1312-2025) and
for respondents No.1, 2 4, 5 and 6 (in RFA-506-2025)

Mr. Bhim Singh, Advocate
for appellants ( in RFAs No.616, 617, 619 to 628, 636 to 638,
640, 641, 674, 678, 682, 784, 790, 792, 795, 1035, 1037,
1132 of 2025 and RFA-923-2026
for respondents (in RFAs No.433, 448, 455, 456, 461 to 465,
467, 469 to 471, 473, 475, 477, 481, 486, 491, 494, 495,
497, 499, 502, 509, 513, 513, 517 of 2025)

Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate and
Ms. Neha, Advocate for the appellant(s)
(in RFA Nos.452, 1132, 1225 and 1064 of 2025).

Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate
for the appellant(s) ( in RFA-722 and 729 of 2025).


Mr. Abhishek Yadav, DAG Haryana
*
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)


1. These appeals under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act,
1894 Act (for short ‘1894 Act’) are directed against awards passed by the
Reference Court. The landowners are claiming enhancement of the
assessed market value and interest under Section 28 and the State is
claiming otherwise. Tabulated details of the assessment made till date
read as: -
Date of notification under Section 4 25.04.2008
Date of notification under Section 6 22.04.2009
Purpose of acquisition Setting up of IMT Manesar
Location Villages: Kukrola
Tehsil: Manesar
District: Gurugram
Village: Fazalwas
Tehsil: Manesar
District: Gurugram
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -7-

Area 3560 Kanal 5 Marla
Date of order of Collector (LAC) 21.04.2011
Market value as per LAC (per (i) ₹ 57,60,000/- for land abutting NH-8 upto the
acre) depth of two acres
(ii) ₹48,00,000/- for remaining land
Date of Reference Court (RC) order 18.03.2025 17.04.2025
Market value as per RC (per acre) (i) ₹87,34,885/- for
land abutting NH-8
upto the depth of 5 acre

(ii) ₹62,14,421/- for
remaining land
(i) ₹1,21,00,000/- for
land abutting NH-8
upto the depth of 5
acre
(ii) ₹62,14,421/- for
remaining land


2. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals,
with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this
common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are
borrowed from RFA-493-2025 .


3. The appellant-HSIIDC through instant appeal is seeking
modification of award dated 18.03.2025 whereby learned Additional
District Judge, Sonipat (hereinafter called as ‘Reference Court’) has
awarded enhanced amount of compensation.

4. The State Government issued notification dated 25.04.2008
under Section 4 of the of 1894 Act for the acquisition of land situated
within the revenue estate of village Kukrola and Fazalwas, Tehsil
Manesar, District Gurugram with intent to construct IMT Manesar. The
said notification was followed by notification dated 22.04.2009 issued
under Section 6 of 1894 Act.


5. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘Collector’) vide
Award dated 21.04.2011, in terms of provisions of 1894 Act, determined
compensation payable to the landowners. Market value of the acquired
land was determined at the rate of ₹48,00,000/- per acre for all kinds of
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -8-

land and ₹ 57,60,000/- per acre for land abutting NH-8 upto the depth of
two acres. Landowners were held entitled to solatium and other statutory
benefits.

6. Fertile Land Protection Movement and Sarpanches of
different villages filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.113 of 2011 before
Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
The Apex Court vide interim order dated 25.04.2011 ordered to maintain
status quo . The order dated 25.04.2011 passed by the Supreme Court
reads as:-
“By way of ad interim relief, the prayer claimed in
paragraph 12(a) of the memorandum of special leave
petition is granted till further orders”
Paragraph No.12(a) of the petition for the ready reference is reproduced
as below:-
“Grant ex-parte ad-interim stay of the further proceedings
pertaining to taking possession of the land notified by the
respondent authority for acquisition vide notification dated
25.04.2008 and 22.04.2009 and 11.01.2011 and/or to
maintain status quo pertaining to the said lands”
6.1 The Apex Court vide order dated 06.08.2014 transferred
aforesaid petition to this Court which vide order dated 02.12.2019
disposed of the same.
6.2 HSIIDC after disposal of the aforesaid petition started
process of taking possession of the acquired land and release of
compensation. The landowners accepted compensation and feeling dis-
satisfied from the aforesaid award, preferred petitions before the
Collector which were referred to the Court under Section 18 of the 1894
Act.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -9-


7. The landowners as well as State, in support of their
contentions, led their evidence. The State attempted to justify market
value determined by Collector, however, landowners vehemently pleaded
that value of their land has been assessed on lower side.

8. The Reference Court while appreciating evidence led by both
sides, by impugned award adjudicated reference petitions. The Reference
Court has assessed market value of the acquired land qua village Kukrola
at the rate of ₹87,34,885/- per acre for land abutting NH-8 up to the depth
of 5 acre and ₹62,14,421/- for the remaining land. The Reference Court
vide award dated 17.04.2025 has assessed market value of the land qua
village Fazalwas @ ₹1,21,00,000/- abutting NH-8 upto the depth of 5
acres and @ ₹62,14,421/- per acre for remaining land.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant-HSIIDC submits that
landowners were issued notice under Section 9 though no notice under
Section 12(2) was issued. The moment notice under Section 9 was
served, the landowners came to know about acquisition. They cannot
claim ignorance qua award under Section 11. They have filed petition
before Supreme Court assailing acquisition and award, thus, they were
well aware of the Award. The award was passed on 21.04.2011 whereas
application under Section 18 was filed on 22.12.2020 which was clearly
barred by limitation. As per Section 18(2) application has to be filed
within six months from the date of award. The reference Court has
wrongly recorded the findings that there was no knowledge of the award,
thus, landowners could not file application under Section 18 within
limitation.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -10-


10. Learned counsel for the respondent/landowners submit that
Collector passed award on 21.04.2011 whereby compensation
@₹48,00,000/- per acre was determined. Land falling within depth of 2
acre was assessed to compensation @ ₹57,60,000/- per acre. Sarpanches
of few Villages in association with Fertile Land Protection Movement,
filed WP(C) No.113 of 2011 before Hon’ble Supreme Court. Petition
before Supreme Court was filed on 01.03.2011 and Supreme Court vide
order dated 19.04.2011 permitted the Collector to pass award. The
Collector passed award on 21.04.2011. The Supreme Court vide order
dated 25.04.2011 ordered to maintain status quo . The respondent in view
of status quo order passed by Supreme Court did not take actual physical
possession. The Supreme Court vide order dated 06.08.2014 asked this
Court to adjudicate aforesaid petition. The matter remained pending
before this Court from August’ 2014 to 02.12.2019. This Court vide
order dated 02.12.2019 disposed of the aforesaid petition. The
respondent deposited assessed compensation with Collector on
11.12.2020 and landowners received the same. The landowners on
22.12.2020 filed application before Collector under Section 18 which was
forwarded to the Court. Ld. Additional District Judge has not finally
adjudicated the question of interest, however, allowed reference filed
under Section 18. The Reference Court has enhanced compensation from
₹48,00,000/- to ₹62,14,421/- per acre and from ₹57,60,000/- to
87,34,885/- per acre. The Reference Court has duly considered question
of limitation. The Court has found that there was no constructive or
actual knowledge of the award passed by Collector because no notice
under Section 12(2) was even issued to the landowners. As notice under
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -11-

Section 12(2) was not issued and landowners did not receive
compensation, there was no question of actual or constructive knowledge
of the award. Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again has held that period
of six months envisaged under Section 18(2) must be counted from the
date of actual or constructive knowledge. In the present case, the
landowners were neither having actual nor constructive knowledge of the
award. Petition before the Supreme Court was filed by few Sarpanches.
The landowners were neither party to writ petition nor had authorized
Sarpanches to file said petition. In such circumstances, the Reference
Court has rightly held that applications under Section 18 were filed within
prescribed period of limitation. The question of quantum of
compensation stands settled by Supreme Court in Krishan Kumar Vs.
State of Haryana & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1043. As per aforesaid
judgment, the landowners are entitled to compensation @₹1,21,00,000/-
qua land within 5 acres depth from NH-8 and ₹62,14,121/- qua remaining
lands.

11. All the arguments raised by both sides have been recorded in
the presence of counsel for the parties. They have not raised any other
argument.

12. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

13. The appellant-HSIIDC has challenged impugned awards on
the ground that reference application under Section 18 was filed beyond
the prescribed period of limitation. As per Section 18(2), application
seeking reference could be filed within six months whereas landowners
filed applications after more than 8 years. The Reference Court was
bound to dismiss petitions on the ground of limitation, however,
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -12-

adjudicated on merits. Challenge of HSIIDC to impugned awards rests
on Section 18 which reads as:-
“ 18. Reference to court (1) Any person interested who has
not accepted the award may, by written application to the
Collector, require that the matter be referred by the
Collector for the determination of the court, whether his
objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of
the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable. or
the apportionment of the compensation among the persons
interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which
objection to the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be
made.,-
(a) if the person making it was present or
represented before the Collector at the time
when be made his award, within six weeks from
the rote of the Collector's award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of
the notice from the Collector under section 12,
sub-section (2)’ or, within six months from the
date of the Collector's award, whichever period
shall first expire.”

14. A bare reading of Section 18(2) reveals that application
seeking reference must be filed within six months from the date of award.
The said period is mandatory period and cannot be condoned. In case
application is filed beyond six months from the date of award, it is liable
to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Time and again Section
18(2) has come up for consideration before Supreme Court. Few relevant
judgments are noticed hereinunder:-
(i) In
Mohd. Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra , (1979) 2
SCC 572, the Apex Court has held that it is one of the duties of the
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -13-

Reference Court to examine whether application before Collector has
been filed within prescribed period of limitation. The Court has held:
“22. The word “requires” in Section 18 of the Act implies
compulsion. It carries with it the idea that the written
application makes it incumbent on the Collector to make a
reference. The Collector is required to make a reference
under Section 18 on the fulfilment of certain conditions.
The first condition is that there shall be a written
application by a person interested who has not accepted
the award. The second condition is as to the nature of the
objections which may be taken, and the third condition is
as to the time within which the application shall be made.
The power of the Collector to make a reference under
Section 18 is thus circumscribed by the conditions laid
down therein, and one condition is the condition regarding
limitation to be found in the proviso.
23. The conditions laid down in Section 18 are ‘matters of
substance and their observance is a condition precedent to
the Collector's power of reference, as rightly observed by
Chandavarkar, J., in re Land Acquisition Act. We are
inclined to the view that the fulfilment of the conditions,
particularly the one regarding limitation, are the
conditions subject to which the power of the Collector to
make the reference exists. It must accordingly be held that
the making of an application for reference within the time
prescribed by proviso to Section 18 sub-section (2) is a
sine qua non for a valid reference by the Collector.
24. From these considerations, it follows that the court
functioning under the Act being a tribunal of special
jurisdiction, it is its duty to see that the reference made to
it by the Collector under Section 18 complies with the
conditions laid down therein so as to give the court
jurisdiction to hear the reference. In view of these
principles, we would be extremely reluctant to accept the
statement of law laid down by the Allahabad High Court
in Abdul Karim case. ”
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -14-

(ii) In Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer ,
1961 SCC OnLine SC 140, the Supreme Court has held that actual or
constructive knowledge of Award is necessary. Where award is passed in
the absence of person interested, limitation period of six months cannot
be counted from the date of award and it should be counted from the date
of knowledge to the aggrieved party. Mere passing of Award and filing in
the office of Collector is not sufficient. Award in terms of Section 12(2)
must be communicated to the affected party because his rights are
affected. The Court has held:
“6. There is yet another point which leads to the
same conclusion. If the award is treated as an
administrative decision taken by the Collector in the
matter of the valuation of the property sought to be
acquired it is clear that the said decision ultimately affects
the rights of the owner of the property and in that sense,
like all decisions which affect persons, it is essentially fair
and just that the said decision should be communicated to
the said party. The knowledge of the party affected by such
a decision, either actual or constructive, is an essential
element which must be satisfied before the decision can be
brought into force. Thus considered the making of the
award cannot consist merely in the physical act of writing
the award or signing it or even filing it in the office of the
Collector; it must involve the communication of the said
award to the party concerned either actually or
constructively. If the award is pronounced in the presence
of the party whose rights are affected by it can be said to
be made when pronounced. If the date for the
pronouncement of the award is communicated to the party
and it is accordingly pronounced on the date previously
announced the award is said to be communicated to the
said party even if the said party is not actually present on
the date of its pronouncement. Similarly if without notice
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -15-

of the date of its pronouncement, an award is pronounced
and a party is not present the award can be said to be
made when it is communicated to the party later. The
knowledge of the party affected by the award, either actual
or constructive, being an essential requirement of fair play
and natural justice the expression “the date of the award”
used in the proviso must mean the date when the award is
either communicated to the party or is known by him either
actually or constructively. In our opinion, therefore, it
would be unreasonable to construe the words “from the
date of the Collector's award” used in the proviso to
Section 18 in a literal or mechanical way.
7. In this connection it is material to recall the fact
that under Section 12(2) it is obligatory on the Collector to
give immediate notice of the award to the persons
interested as are not present personally or by their
representatives when the award is made. This requirement
itself postulates the necessity of the communication of the
award to the party concerned. The legislature recognised
that the making of the award under Section 11 followed by
its filing under Section 12(1) would not meet the
requirements of justice before bringing the award into
force. It thought that the communication of the award to
the party concerned was also necessary, and so by the use
of the mandatory words an obligation is placed on the
Collector to communicate the award immediately to the
person concerned. It is significant that the section requires
the Collector to give notice of the award immediately after
making it. This provision lends support to the view which
we have taken about the construction of the expression
“from the date of the Collector's award” in the proviso to
Section 18. It is because communication of the order is
regarded by the legislature as necessary that Section 12(2)
has imposed an obligation on the Collector and if the
relevant clause in the proviso is read in the light of this
statutory requirement it tends to show that the literal and
mechanical construction of the said clause would be
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -16-

wholly inappropriate. It would indeed be a very curious
result that the failure of the Collector to discharge his
obligation under Section 12(2) should directly tend to
make ineffective the right of the party to make an
application under Section 18, and this result could not
possibly have been intended by the legislature. ”
(iii) In Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P. , (2010) 3 SCC 545
Supreme Court has held that limitation period of six months commences
from the date of knowledge where landowner was not present at the time
of passing Award. The Collector must establish that there was actual or
constructive knowledge of award to the claimant. The Court has held
that actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the award can be
established by the Collector by proving that the person interested had
received or drawn the compensation amount for the acquired land, or had
attested the mahazar/panchnama/proceedings delivering possession of the
acquired land in pursuance of the acquisition, or had filed a case
challenging the award or had acknowledged the making of the award in
any document or in statement on oath or evidence.
“30. When a person interested makes an
application for reference seeking the benefit of six months'
period from the date of knowledge, the initial onus is on
him to prove that he (or his representative) was not
present when the award was made, that he did not receive
any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, and that he did
not have the knowledge of the contents of the award during
a period of six months prior to the filing the application
for reference. This onus is discharged by asserting these
facts on oath. He is not expected to prove the negative.
Once the initial onus is discharged by the claimant/person
interested, it is for the Land Acquisition Collector to
establish that the person interested was present either in
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -17-

person or through his representative when the award was
made, or that he had received a notice under Section 12(2)
of the Act, or that he had knowledge of the contents of the
award.
31. Actual or constructive knowledge of the contents
of the award can be established by the Collector by
proving that the person interested had received or drawn
the compensation amount for the acquired land, or had
attested the mahazar/panchnama/proceedings delivering
possession of the acquired land in pursuance of the
acquisition, or had filed a case challenging the award or
had acknowledged the making of the award in any
document or in statement on oath or evidence. The person
interested, not being in possession of the acquired land
and the name of the State or its transferee being entered in
the revenue municipal records coupled with delay, can
also lead to an inference of constructive knowledge. In the
absence of any such evidence by the Collector, the claim of
the person interested that he did not have knowledge
earlier will be accepted, unless there are compelling
circumstances not to do so.”

15. From the above-cited judgments, it can be culled out that
there should be actual or constructive knowledge of the award to the
landowner. In the absence of actual or constructive knowledge, the
limitation period prescribed under Section 18 does not start to run. The
Collector is duty bound to serve notice under Section 12(2) and in the
absence of notice, the Collector must prove that there was
actual/constructive notice to the landowner who was not present at the
time of passing award. The constructive knowledge may be established
by leading evidence to the effect that landowner has collected
compensation or he has signed panchnama whereby possession of the
acquired land was taken.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -18-



16. In the present case, the State and HSIIDC are conceding that notice
under Section 12(2) was never issued leaving aside served upon
landowners. They are relying upon notice under Section 9 which cannot
be treated as knowledge of the award because passing of award under
Section 11 is a step subsequent to the notice under Section 9. The
Collector did not issue notice under Section 12(2), thus, it is necessary to
ascertain whether landowners were having constructive knowledge or not.
The HSIIDC is relying upon petition filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court
which was transferred to this Court and was finally disposed of vide order
dated 02.12.2019. The petition was concededly neither filed by
landowners nor represented by counsel engaged by landowners. It was
filed by an association along with Sarpanches of few villages. They have
challenged acquisition on the ground that acquisition is discriminatory
and would adversely affect environment. The landowners remained in
possession from 2011 to 2019. The Collector never attempted to take
possession till 2019. This fact stands admitted by the Manager of
HSIIDC. The Collector as required by Section 31 neither deposited
compensation in the account of landowners nor deposited with Reference
Court. It proves that landowners did not get compensation till the end of
2019. The Collector in view of interim order passed by Supreme Court
neither took possession of the acquired land nor paid compensation to the
landowners during 2011 to 2019. The process of taking over possession
and payment of compensation started after disposing of writ petition by
this Court. The landowners received compensation on 11.12.2020 and
filed application under Section 18 on 22.12.2020 means it was filed
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -19-

within prescribed period if date of receipt of compensation is considered
as date of knowledge of the award.

17. In the backdrop, it can safely be concluded that the Collector
has failed to establish that prior to receipt of compensation and taking
over possession of their land, the landowners were having actual or
constructive knowledge of the award.

18. As noticed hereinabove, entire process of acquisition was
kept in abeyance due to interim order dated 25.04.2011 passed by
Supreme Court. The said order stood withdrawn the moment petition was
disposed of by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2019. The State did not
take any step qua acquisition during 25.04.2011 to 02.12.2019. The
aforesaid period needs to be treated as dead period and deserves to be
excluded from the limitation period prescribed under Section 18. The
limitation period needs to be counted from the date of disposal of writ
petition by this Court.

19. The matter needs to be examined from another angle. The
Reference Court has noticed that State has conceded that reference
petitions of Ganga Bishan Gupta (LAC-45-2023) and Ram Singh ( LAC-
50-2023 ) were filed within limitation period. The Reference Court has
decided aforesaid petitions along with other reference petitions. As per
Section 28A, any landowner who has not filed reference under Section
18, based on Award passed by Reference Court with respect to other
landowners, may file an application before Collector seeking
compensation at par with other landowners. Section 28A reads as:

DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -20-

28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation
on the basis of the award of the Court
[Inserted by Act 68 of 1984, Section 19 (w.e.f.
24.9.1984).]

(1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows
to the applicant any amount of compensation in
excess of the amount awarded by the Collector
under section 11, the persons interested in all the
other land covered by the same notification under
section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also
aggrieved by the award of the Collector may,
notwithstanding that they had not made an
application to the Collector under section 18, by
written application to the Collector within three
months from the date of the award of the Court
require that the amount of compensation payable to
them may be re-determined on the basis of the
amount of compensation awarded by the Court:
Provided that in computing the period of three
months within which an application to the Collector
shall be made under this sub-section, the day on
which the award was pronounced and the time
requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be
excluded.


(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application
under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after
giving notice to all the persons interested and giving
them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and
make an award determining the amount of
compensation payable to the applicants.

(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under
sub-section (2) may, by written application to the
Collector, require that the matter be referred by the
Collector for the determination of the Court and the
provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may
be, apply to such reference as they apply to a
reference under section 18.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -21-

Remedies provided under Sections 18 and 28A are meant to
determine and pay just, fair & reasonable compensation to the
landowners. In the present case, the landowners within 3 months from the
date of adjudication of reference of Ganga Bishan Gupta could file
application under Section 28A. They filed reference during the pendency
of reference of Ganga Gupta. Their reference though not directly yet
indirectly may be considered as application under Section 28A because
object of Section 28A is to grant equal amount of compensation to all the
landowners.

20. In the light of afore-cited judgments and obtained factual
position, this Court finds that landowners had filed application under
Section 18 within prescribed period of limitation.

21. Learned counsel for the landowners in the suppressed voice
have raised question of interest. They are claiming that they, in terms of
Section 28, are entitled to interest from the date of award dated
21.04.2011. Sections 28 and 34 provide for interest on the amount of
compensation which read as:-
“ 28 . If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the
Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in
excess of the sum which the Collector did award as
compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the
Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate
of[nine per centum per annum from the date on which he
took possession of the land to the date of payment of such
excess into Court:
Provided that the award of the Court may also
direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid
into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year
from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -22-

rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from
the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the
amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been
paid into Court before the date of such expiry.
34. When the amount of such compensation is not paid or
deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the
Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest
thereon at the rate of nine per centum from the time of so
taking possession until it shall have been so paid or
deposited.
Provided that if such compensation or any part
thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year
from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the
rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable 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.”
[Emphasis supplied]

22. From the perusal of Sections 28 & 34, it is evident that
fundamental difference between Sections 28 & 34 is that interest
provided under Section 34 is statutory and mandatory whereas interest
provided under Section 28 is statutory, however, Court has discretion to
award on enhanced amount of compensation. Courts and authorities have
no discretion while granting interest under Section 34 of 1894 Act
because it is statutory and mandatory. It is in a way automatic. The
moment land is acquired and possession is taken away, Collector becomes
liable to pay interest on the assessed compensation. However, as per
Section 28, Court has discretion to grant interest on enhanced amount of
compensation. The Court may or may not grant interest on enhanced
amount of compensation. It is not a mandatory provision. Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Maj. Gen. Kapil Mehra and others. v. Union of India
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -23-

& another., 2015(2) RCR(Civil) 4 in Para 45 has clearly held that award
of interest under Section 28 is a discretionary power vested in the Court
and it must be exercised in a judicious manner and not arbitrarily. Para 45
reads as:
“45. Award of interest under Section 34 is mandatory in
as much the word used in the Section is shall'. The scheme
of the Act and the express provisions thereof establish that
the interest payable under Section 34 is statutory. The
claim for interest under Section 28 of the Act proceeds on
the basis that due compensation not having been paid, the
claimant should be allowed interest on the enhanced
compensation amount. The award of interest under
Section 28 is discretionary power vested in the Court and
it has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not
arbitrarily. The use of the word "may" in Section 28 does
not confer any arbitrary discretion on the Court to
disallow interest for no valid or proper reasons. Normally,
Court awards interest if it enhances the compensation in
excess of the amount awarded by the Collector, unless
there are exceptional circumstances.”

23. The present appeals are confined to interest payable under
Section 28 for the period from 2011 to 2019.

24. As per Section 28 like Section 34, interest is payable from
the date of taking possession of the acquired land. There is rational
behind it. A landowner should not be deprived from his valuable land
without paying compensation. If State takes possession of the acquired
land without paying compensation, it should pay interest @ 9% for the
first year and thereafter @ 15% p.a. The moment Collector takes
possession of the acquired land, the landowner is deprived from his
valuable right to utilize the same. Land for the most of owners is source
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -24-

of their livelihood. If a landowner is not deprived from his right to utilize
acquired land, there is no question of payment of interest especially when
there is general stay granted by one or another Court. The expression
‘ possession’ of the acquired land contemplated under Section 28 has been
considered by different Courts including Supreme Court.

25. The Supreme Court in Balwant Narayan Bhagde Vs. M.D.
Bhagwat & Ors., (1976) 1 SCC 700 has held that possession means
possession on the spot and neither symbolic nor as understood in civil
law. Once possession has been taken the land vests in the Government.
The relevant extracts reads as:-
“25. ..… On the taking of possession of the land
under Section 16 or 17 (1) it vests absolutely in the
Government free from all incumbrances. It is, therefore,
clear that taking of possession within the meaning of
Section 16 or 17 (1) means taking of possession on the
spot. It is neither a possession on paper nor a "symbolical"
possession as generally understood in civil law. But the
question is what is the mode of taking possession? The Act
is silent on the point. Unless possession is taken by the
written agreement of the party concerned the mode of
taking possession obviously would be for the authority to
go upon the land and to do some act which would indicate
that the authority has taken possession of the land. It may
be in the form of a declaration by beat of drum or
otherwise or by hanging a written declaration on the spot
that the authority has taken possession of the land. The
presence of the owner or the occupant of the land to
effectuate the taking of possession is not necessary. No
further notice beyond that under Section 9(1) of the Act is
required. When possession has been taken, the owner or
the occupant of the land is dispossessed. Once possession
has been taken the land vests in the Government.”
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -25-


26. The Bombay High Court in Sitaram Shivchandrai Garoda
& Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (1995) Mh.L.J. 596 has held
that the Government must take the actual possession of the acquired land
since all the interests in the land are sought to be acquired by it. The
relevant extracts read as:-
“7. ….. At this stage we may point out that the Supreme
Court in B. N. Bhagde vs. M. D Bhagwat, AIR 1975 SC
1767 has observed that when the Government proceeds to
take possession of the land acquired by it under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, it must take actual possession of the
land since all interests in the land are sought to be
acquired by it. There can be no question of taking
'symbolical' possession in the sense understood by judicial
decisions under the Code of Civil Procedure.”

27. From the reading of Section 28 and afore-cited judgments, it
can be culled out that interest under Section 28 is payable from the date
of actual possession.

28. Learned Senior Advocates for the landowners during hearing
drew attention of this Court towards deposition (Ex.RW-2/A) of Vineet
Malik Manager of HSIIDC who has deposed that due to interim order
dated 25.04.2011 passed by Supreme Court in WP(C) No.113 of 2011
possession of the acquired land was not taken. The High Court disposed
of aforesaid petition on 02.12.2019 which resulted into vacation of
interim order passed by Supreme Court. Thereafter process of taking
possession of the acquired land was started. Prior to 02.12.2019
possession of the acquired land was with the landowners which is evident
from Khasra Girdawari Ex.R-5 to R-7.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -26-

By relying upon aforesaid deposition and claiming that they
were unaware about the award, the landowners have conceded that
physical possession of the acquired land was never taken by the Collector
during 2011 to 2019 and they continued to utilize the same for their
personal purposes. Landowners’ claim for interest is contradictory to
their claim that they were unaware of award dated 21.04.2011 passed by
Collector. As held by Supreme Court, if possession of the acquired land
is taken by Collector, there would be constructive knowledge of the
award to the landowner. To avoid rigour of limitation period prescribed
under Section 18, the landowners are claiming that they were unaware of
the award and land was in their possession. As soon as their aforesaid
argument is accepted, their claim for interest from the date of award
(21.04.2011) to date of possession (02.12.2019) becomes baseless and
cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, landowners’ claim qua interest for
the aforesaid period is hereby declined.

29. There is no dispute with respect to quantum of
compensation. Learned counsel for the HSIIDC has conceded that if
question of limitation is adjudicated in favour of the landowners, they are
entitled to compensation at the rate as assessed by the Supreme Court in
Krishan Kumar (supra) .

30. Sequitur to the above discussion and findings, the appeals
filed by HSIIDC stand dismissed and appeals filed by landowners are
allowed to the extent that market value qua land within 5 acres depth
from NH-8 is determined @ ₹1,21,00,000/- per acre and market value of
the remaining land is determined @ ₹62,14,121/- per acre. The
landowners shall not be entitled to interest under Section 28 for the period
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


RFA-493-2025 (O&M) and connected cases -27-

from 21.04.2011 to 02.12.2019 (date of possession of the acquired land).
They would be entitled to statutory benefits provided under 1894 Act
besides interest on enhanced amount of compensation from 02.12.2019.
It is hereby made clear that where physical possession was taken after
02.12.2019, the liability of interest under Section 28 on the enhanced
amount of compensation would start from the date of possession.
In RFAs No.729, 845 and 847 of 2025

31. In the afore-stated appeals, HSIIDC has accepted that
references were filed within six months from the date of award, thus,
were within limitation. The landowners of these appeals are claiming
interest for the aforesaid disputed period. As held above, interest is
payable from the date of actual possession. Possession of the acquired
land, in the case of these landowners was also taken after disposal of
petition by this Court, thus, they cannot claim interest under Section 28
for the period acquired land remained in their possession. Therefore,
their claim being unsustainable is hereby rejected.

32. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.


(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
September 02, 2026
Deepak DPA


Whether Speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment