Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructural Development Corporation Ltd vs Vinod And Others

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court




IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 01.09.2026
1. CR-5962-2025 (O&M)

HSIIDC LTD. ...Petitioner
Versus

VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS ...Respondents

2. CR-5963-2025

HSIIDC LTD. ...Petitioner
Versus

LAJPAT DHAMIJA AND OTHERS ...Respondents


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:- Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate,
Ms. Rajdeep Kaur, Advocate
Mr. Daksh Saini, Advocate and
Mr. Robin Mahiwal, Advocate for the petitioner

Dr. Pankaj Nanhara, Sr. Advocate and
Mr. Aman Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.1

Mr. Priyavrat Parashar, A.A.G. Haryana
*
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)


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 order.

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders dated
06.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) and 28.05.2025 (Annexure P-4) whereby Ld.
Addl. District Judge, Sirsa has awarded interest for the period from the
date of award.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.03 11:06
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


CR-5962-2025 and CR-5963-2025 -2-


3. The State of Haryana vide notification dated 21.01.2009
issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Act (for short ‘1894
Act’) expressed its intention to acquire 5 Kanal 13 Marla land situated in
Village Khairpur and Kanganpur, District Sirsa. The Collector passed
award under Section 11 on 18.01.2012. The landowners filed reference
under Section 18. Ld. ADJ vide award dated 09.12.2016 enhanced the
amount of compensation. The respondents herein preferred execution
application seeking release of interest. The said application came up for
consideration before Ld. ADJ, Sirsa who vide impugned order dated
06.02.2025 held the respondents entitled to interest from the date of
award. Ld. ADJ relied upon Section 23(1A) of 1894 Act.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that award was passed
on 18.01.2012, however, possession of the acquired land was taken on
16.01.2018. The petitioner is liable to pay interest from the date of taking
possession. The Executing Court has wrongly relied upon Section
23(1A). Interest on the delayed payment is governed by Section 34.
Section 23(1A) has no bearing with interest, thus, Executing Court has
wrongly relied upon Section 23(1A). Land in question was used by
respondents from 2012 to 2018. They cannot claim interest under Section
34 for the period land was in their possession. It was agricultural land
and they have utilized the same during the aforesaid period.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents expressed his
inability to controvert that Executing Court has wrongly placed reliance
upon Section 23(1A), however, submits that interest was payable from the
date of dismissal of writ petition because as per award dated 18.01.2012
possession was to be taken over after the decision of this Court in writ
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.03 11:06
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


CR-5962-2025 and CR-5963-2025 -3-

petition. The writ petition was disposed of on 02.05.2012, thus, petitioner
acquired possession of the acquired land in May’ 2012. There was no
stay of acquisition, thus, petitioner had taken possession from the date of
award. The respondent has not utilized acquired land for agricultural or
any other purpose during 2012 to 2018. The land remained in the
possession of petitioner, thus, it is liable to pay interest. Similarly
situated farmers have has been released interest by petitioner for the
aforesaid period.

6. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

7. From the perusal of impugned order, it is evident that Ld.
Executing Court has wrongly relied upon Section 23(1A) which provides
for additional compensation @12% p.a. Section 23(1A) has no bearing
with question of interest which is provided under Section 28 or 34. In the
present case, Section 34 was relevant which reads as:-

“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]

DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.03 11:06
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


CR-5962-2025 and CR-5963-2025 -4-


8. From the perusal of above-quoted Section, it is evident that
interest is payable from the date of possession to date of payment. The
Executing Court has not returned findings with respect to date of
possession. In the absence of findings, it cannot be concluded that
interest is payable from the date of award. The petitioner is liable to pay
interest from the date of award if possession is taken on the said date.
Interest is compensatory in nature and its intention is to compel the State
to pay compensation at the earliest and protect interest of landowner
because if possession is taken and compensation is not paid, he may be
penniless and deprived from livelihood.

9. The Hon’ble 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 read 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
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.03 11:06
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


CR-5962-2025 and CR-5963-2025 -5-

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.”

10. 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.”

11. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court
deems it appropriate to set aside impugned order and accordingly set
aside. Revision petitions are allowed by way of remand for de novo
adjudication.

12. The Executing Court is requested to pass fresh order within
six months from today. The parties at the first instance shall appear
before Executing Court on 20.09.2026 and thereafter as directed by said
Court. The parties would be free to lead evidence to establish date of
possession.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.03 11:06
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment


CR-5962-2025 and CR-5963-2025 -6-


13. The Executing Court while passing fresh order shall consider
whether any other similarly situated farmer has been released interest by
petitioner for the aforesaid period.

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

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
September 01, 2026
Deepak DPA

Whether Speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.03 11:06
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment