Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructural Development Corporation Ltd vs Raj Pal Singh And Others
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Item No.219+231+110 (93 cases) RFA-964-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 10.09.2026
Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructural Development Corporation
…Appellant
Limited
Versus
Raj Pal Singh and others …Respondents
With
Sr. Case No. Appellant(s) Respondent(s)
No.
2. RFA-952-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Mamta Rani and others
3. RFA-953-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ranjit Singh and
others
4. RFA-954-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Surjeet Singh and others
5. RFA-955-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Lekh Raj and others
6. RFA-956-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Kumari Alankrita Aggarwal
and another
7. RFA-957-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Jaswant Singh and another
8. RFA-958-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Meena Garg and another
9. RFA-959-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Raj Kumar and another
10. RFA-960-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Jaswinder Singh alias Sant
and another
11. RFA-961-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Paramjit Singh and others
12. RFA-962-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Som Nath and another
13. RFA-963-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Jabbar Singh and others
14. RFA-965-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Pardeep Singh and others
15. RFA-966-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Pritam Singh and others
16. RFA-967-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Urmila Devi and another
17. RFA-968-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Kanta and another
18. RFA-969-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Jagjit Singh and others
19. RFA-970-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Jaipal Singh and others
20. RFA-971-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Harbans Singh and others
21. RFA-972-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Des Raj and others
22. RFA-973-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Meenu Gupta and another
23. RFA-974-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Gurbachan Singh and others
24. RFA-975-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Manjit Singh and others
25. RFA-976-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Onkar Singh and others
26. RFA-977-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Sahab Singh and others
27. RFA-978-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Tejo and others
28. RFA-979-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Swapna Garg and another
29. RFA-980-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Kirti Sharma and another
30. RFA-981-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Arun Kumar Jain and
another
31. RFA-982-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Sandeep Singh and others
32. RFA-983-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Amarjit Singh and others
33. RFA-984-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Anup Sharma and others
34. RFA-985-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Surjit Singh and others
35. RFA-986-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Lakhmir Singh and others
36. RFA-987-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Sudesh and another
37. RFA-988-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Nirmal Singh and others
38. RFA-989-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Dayal Chand and others
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.09.11 16:49
I am the author of this
document
RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -2-
Sr. Case No. Appellant(s) Respondent(s)
No.
39. RFA-990-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Madan Gopal and others
40. RFA-991-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Kuldeep Singh and others
41. RFA-992-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Karamjit Singh and others
42. RFA-993-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Balwant Singh and others
43. RFA-994-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Jai Singh and others
44. RFA-995-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Surinder Singh and others
45. RFA-996-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ajay Kumar and another
46. RFA-997-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Radha Rani and another
47. RFA-998-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Manjit Singh and others
48. RFA-999-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Narinder Singh and another
49. RFA-1000-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Vikram Singh and another
50. RFA-1001-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Rameshwar and others
51. RFA-1002-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Jangsher Singh alias
Sherjang and others
52. RFA-1003-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Davinder Singh and others
53. RFA-1004-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Jai Singh and others
54. RFA-1005-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Aklesh Goel and others
55. RFA-1006-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Baljit Kaur and another
56. RFA-1007-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Krishna Wanti and others
57. RFA-1008-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Rattan Singh and others
58. RFA-1009-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Urmil Jain and another
59. RFA-1010-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Vishal Gupta and another
60. RFA-1011-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ritu Rani and another
61. RFA-1012-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Amar Singh and others
62. RFA-1014-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ranjit Singh and others
63. RFA-1015-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Gurmej Singh and others
64. RFA-1017-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Gurmeet Singh and others
65. RFA-1018-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Dalip Singh and others
66. RFA-1019-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Virender Singh and others
67. RFA-1020-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Gulab Singh and another
68. RFA-1021-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Vijay Kumar and another
69. RFA-1221-2025 (O&M) Kumari Alankrita State of Haryana and
Aggarwal another
70. RFA-1222-2025 (O&M) Mamta Rani and State of Haryana and
another another
71. RFA-1226-2025 (O&M) Meenu Gupta State of Haryana and
another
72. RFA-1227-2025 (O&M) Kirti Sharma State of Haryana and
another
73. RFA-1234-2025 (O&M) Vijay Kumar
State of Haryana and
another
74. RFA-1236-2025 (O&M) Meena Garg State of Haryana and
another
75. RFA-1237-2025 (O&M) Aklesh Goel and State of Haryana and
another another
76. RFA-1238-2025 (O&M) Baljit Kaur State of Haryana and
another
77. RFA-1239-2025 (O&M) Radha Rani State of Haryana and
another
78. RFA-1240-2025 (O&M) Vishal Gupta State of Haryana and
another
79. RFA-1243-2025 (O&M) Swapna Garg State of Haryana and
another
80. RFA-1325-2025 (O&M) Ajay Kumar State of Haryana and
another
81. XOBJR-111-2025 HSIIDC
IN/AND RFA-953-2025
Ranjit Singh and others
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.09.11 16:49
I am the author of this
document
RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -3-
Sr. Case No. Appellant(s) Respondent(s)
No.
82. XOBJR-130-2025
(O&M)
IN RFA-954-2025
HSIIDC Surjeet Singh and others
83. XOBJR-126-2025 HSIIDC Jabbar Singh and others
IN RFA-963-2025
84. XOBJR-127-2025 HSIIDC Jaipal Singh and others
IN RFA-970-2025
85. XOBJR-132-2025 HSIIDC Harbans Singh and others
IN RFA-971-2025
86. XOBJR-135-2025 HSIIDC Gurbachan Singh and others
IN RFA-974-2025
87. XOBJR-131-2025 HSIIDC Lakhmir Singh and others
IN RFA-986-2025
88. XOBJR-129-2025 HSIIDC Surinder Singh and others
IN RFA-995-2025
89. XOBJR-133-2025 HSIIDC Gurmej Singh and others
IN RFA-1015-2025
90. XOBJR-128-2025 HSIIDC Dalip Singh and others
IN RFA-1018-2025
91. XOBJR-147-2025 HSIIDC Gulab Singh and another
IN RFA-1020-2025
92. XOBJR-91-2026
(O&M)
IN RFA-982-2025
HSIIDC Sandeep Singh and others
93. XOBJR-88-2026
(O&M)
IN RFA-964-2025
HSIIDC Raj Pal Singh and others
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: - Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate,
Ms. Vamika Johar, Advocate,
Ms. Parul Saini, Advocate,
Mr. Paramjit Singh, Advocate,
Mr. Deepak Singh Saini, Advocate
Ms. Rajdeep Kaur, Advocate and
Mr. Dakshi Saini, Advocate for HSIIDC
Mr. Sandeep Singh Jattan, Advocate and
Ms. Varsha Choudhary, Advocate
for the appellant(s) in RFA-1221-2025, RFA-1222-2025,
RFA-1226-2025, RFA-1227-2025, RFA-1228-2025,
RFA-1234-2025, RFA-1236-2025, RFA-1237-2025,
RFA-1239-2025, RFA-1240-2025, RFA-1243-2025
for respondent No.1 in RFA-956-2025, RFA-958-2025,
RFA-973-2025, RFA-979-2025, RFA-980-2025,
RFA-996-2025, RFA-997-2025, RFA-1006-2025,
RFA-1010-2025, RFA-1021-2025 and
for respondent Nos.1 & 2 in RFA-952-2025 & RFA-1005-2025
Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for landowners
(in RFA-964-2025 & RFA-982-2025)
Mr. Abhinash Jain, Additional Advocate General, Haryana and
Mr. Abhinav Kalia, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
*
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.09.11 16:49
I am the author of this
document
RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -4-
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J . (Oral)
1. These appeals under Section 74 of Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act,
2013 (for short ‘ 2013 Act ’) are directed against awards passed by the
learned Additional District Judge, Ambala. The landowners are claiming
enhancement of the assessed market value and HSIIDC is claiming
otherwise. In the instant appeals, the Authorities have determined market
value applying provisions of 2013 Act and provisions of Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (for short ‘ 1894 Act ’) have been applied for other aspects.
Tabulated details of the assessment made till date read as: -
Date of notification under Section 4 28.10.2013
Date of notification under Section 6 27.10.2014
Purpose of acquisition i. Construction of effluent channel
to dispose of storm/sewer
effluent from Industrial Growth
Centre and Food Park, Saha of
HSIIDC
ii. Setting up of Growth Centre,
Phase-II (Ambala) of HSIIDC
Location Villages Shergarh, Dhakola,
Jawahargarh, Bihta, District Ambala
Area Shergarh:24 Kanals 12.175 Marlas
Dhakola: 67 Kanals 2.26 Marlas
Jawahargarh: 89 Kanals 16 Marlas
Bihta: 49 Bighas 7 Biswas
Date of order of Collector (LAC) 21.10.2016
Market value as per LAC (per acre) i. Shergarh:
₹ 43,00,000/- for land upto 200
meter depth from Saha to
Shahabad Road and ₹ 18,00,000/-
for the remaining land.
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.09.11 16:49
ii. Dhakola:
I am the author of this
document
RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -5-
₹
43,00,000/- for the land upto 200
meter depth from National
Highway Saha to Shahabad Road
and ₹ 20,00,000/- for the
remaining land.
iii. Jawahargarh:
₹ 20,00,000/-
iv. Bihta:
₹ 32,00,000/- for land upto 200
meter depth from Bihta to
Dhakola Road and ₹ 26,00,000/-
for the remaining land.
Date of order by Authority 28.02.2025
i. Dhakola:
Market Value as per Authority
₹ 43,00,000/- x 1.25 = ₹ 53,75,000/-
(per acre)
₹ 20,00,000/- x 1.25 = ₹ 25,00,000/-
ii. Jawahargarh:
₹ 20,00,000/- x 1.25 = ₹ 25,00,000/-
iii. Shergarh:
₹ 43,00,000/- x 1.5 = ₹ 64,50,000/-
₹ ₹
18,00,000/- x 1.5 = 27,00,000/-
iv. Bihta:
₹ ₹48,00,000/-
32,00,000/- x 1.5 =
₹26,00,000/- x 1.5 = ₹39,00,000/-
2. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, with
the consent of all sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common
order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from
RFA No.964 of 2025 .
3. The appellant-HSIIDC through instant appeal is seeking
modification of award dated 28.02.2025 whereby learned Additional District
Judge, Ambala-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority
(hereinafter called as ‘ Authority ’) has enhanced the multiplying factor from
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.09.11 16:49
I am the author of this
document
RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -6-
1 to 1.25 for the land situated in Villages Dhakola & Jawahargarh and 1.5
for the land situated in Villages Bihta and Shergarh, District Ambala.
4. The State Government issued notification dated 28.10.2013
under Section 4 of the of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘ 1894 Act ’)
for the acquisition of land situated within the revenue estate of four villages
i.e. Shergarh, Dhakola, Jawahargarh and Bihta, District Ambala for the
construction of effluent channel to dispose of storm/sewer effluent from
Industrial Growth Centre and Food Park, Saha of HSIIDC and for setting up
of Growth Centre, Phase-II (Ambala) of HSIIDC. The said notification was
followed by notification dated 27.10.2014 issued under Section 6 of 1894
Act.
5. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘ Collector ’) vide
Award dated 21.10.2016, in terms of provisions of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation &
Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘ 2013 Act ’), determined compensation
payable to the landowners. Market value of the acquired land was
determined as under:
i. For village Shergarh: ₹ 43,00,000/- per acre for the land
upto 200 meter depth from Saha to Shahbad Road and
₹ 18,00,000/- per acre for the remaining land.
ii. For village Dhakola: ₹ 43,00,000/- per acre for the land
upto 200 meter depth from National Highway Saha to
Shahabad Road and ₹ 20,00,000/- per acre for the
remaining land.
₹
iii. Jawahargarh: 20,00,000/- per acre.
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.09.11 16:49
I am the author of this
document
RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -7-
iv. Bihta: ₹ 32,00,000/- per acre for land upto 200 meter
depth from Bihta to Dhakola Road and ₹ 26,00,000/- per
acre for the remaining land.
6. Feeling dis-satisfied from the aforesaid award, landowners
preferred petitions under Section 64 of 2013 Act before the Collector who
referred the matter to Authority constituted under Section 51 of the 2013
Act. The landowners as well as HSIIDC, in support of their contentions, led
their evidence. HSIIDC attempted to justify market value determined by the
Collector, however, landowners vehemently pleaded that value of their land
has been assessed on the lower side.
7. The Authority, appreciating evidence led by both sides, by
impugned common award adjudicated the petitions. The Authority by
impugned award dated 28.02.2025 has enhanced the multiplying factor from
1 to 1.25 for the land situated in Villages Dhakola & Jawahargarh and 1.5
for the land situated in Villages Bihta & Shergarh, District Ambala. HSIIDC
is mainly in appeal. There are 12 appeals of the landowners besides 13
cross-objections in the appeals of the HSIIDC.
8. Learned counsel for HSIIDC submits that many reference
petitions were filed after two years from the date of award, thus, reference
petitions were barred by limitation because reference under Section 18 of
1894 Act can be filed within 6 months from the date of award. The Authority
has further relied upon notification of 2018 whereby multiplier factor has
been notified. The notification under Section 4 in the present case was issued
much prior to 22.01.2018 and Collector passed award on 21.10.2016, thus,
there was no occasion to apply notification of 2018.
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.09.11 16:49
I am the author of this
document
RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -8-
9. Learned counsel for the landowners submit that application
seeking reference under Section 18 was filed within limitation before the
Collector who forwarded the matter to Court after 1½ years. The delay, if
any, was on the part of Collector, thus, it cannot be held that there was delay
on the part of landowners. There may be few cases where there is delay,
however, delay in those cases had occurred because of non-receipt of notice
under Section 12(2) as well as non-receipt of compensation. The moment
landowners received compensation or came to know about the award,
preferred application under Section 18. This Court in bunch of appeals
including RFA No.366 of 2026 titled as ‘ Financial Commissioner &
Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana and others v. Jamila’ has
already held that notification dated 22.01.2018 is applicable for determining
multiplier factor even to cases where notification under Section 4 or award
under Section 11 was passed prior to the date of notification.
10. 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.
11. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
12. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that delay in filing
any appeal which is part of present bunch may be condoned. Accordingly,
delay, if any, in any case, stands condoned. It is clarified that appellants shall
not be entitled to interest for the delayed period.
13. From the perusal of Lower Court Record, it is evident beyond
the pale of doubt that many applications under Section 18 were filed well
within limitation period prescribed under Section 18(2).
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.09.11 16:49
I am the author of this
document
RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -9-
14. 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.
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.09.11 16:49
I am the author of this
document
Similarly if without notice of the date of its
RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -10-
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
MOHIT KUMAR
clause in the proviso is read in the light of this
2026.09.11 16:49
I am the author of this
document
RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -11-
statutory requirement it tends to show that the literal
and mechanical construction of the said clause would
be 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. ”
15. 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
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.09.11 16:49
I am the author of this
document
by the claimant/person interested, it is for the Land
RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -12-
Acquisition Collector to establish that the person
interested was present either in 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.”
16. 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
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.09.11 16:49 whereby possession of the acquired land was taken.
I am the author of this
document
RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -13-
17. Many landowners have filed applications under Section 18
within limitation and there may be few who had filed beyond the prescribed
period of limitation. The Authority has observed that landowners have filed
application under Section 18 within 6 months from the date of knowledge.
There was no notice under Section 12(2), thus, all the applications have been
treated as filed within limitation.
18. A conspectus of original record reveals that many applications
were filed within 6 months from the date of award, thus, those applications
were within limitation. This fact is not disputed by HSIIDC. They are only
claiming that few applications were filed beyond limitation.
19. The Authority has decided all the petitions by common order
i.e. applications which were admittedly within limitation as well as
application where there was doubt regarding limitation. As per Section 28A,
any landowner who has not filed reference under Section 18, on the basis of
Award passed by Authority with respect to other landowners, may file an
application before Collector seeking compensation at par with other
landowners. Section 28A reads as:
“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
MOHIT KUMAR
made an application to the Collector under
2026.09.11 16:49
I am the author of this
document
RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -14-
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.”
20. Remedies provided under Sections 18 and 28A of 1894 Act are
meant to determine and pay just, fair & reasonable compensation to the
landowners. In the present case, the landowners who had filed application
under Section 18 within limitation period could file application under
Section 28A. They filed reference applications during the pendency of
references which were within limitation. Their applications though not
directly yet indirectly may be considered as applications under Section 28A
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.09.11 16:49
I am the author of this
document
RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -15-
because object of Section 28A is to grant equal amount of compensation to
all the landowners.
21. 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.
22. Learned counsel for HSIIDC conceded that question of
applicability of notification dated 23.01.2018 prescribing multiplier factor
has already been adjudicated by this Court in Jamila (supra) . He concedes
that as per order passed in Jamila (supra) , the Authority has rightly applied
multiplier factor.
23. Learned counsel for the landowners, during the course of
hearing, could not point out any infirmity in the basic market value
determined by the Collector and upheld by the Authority. Both sides
primarily disputed question of multiplier.
24. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of
the considered opinion that appeals of HSIIDC and landowners as well as
their cross-objections deserve to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
25. In the backdrop, there seems no reason to entertain applications
seeking permission to lead additional evidence. Accordingly, the same stand
dismissed.
26. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
10.09.2026
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.09.11 16:49
I am the author of this
document