Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Payment of Enhanced Compensation to Section 28-A Claimants; Holds Landowners Entitled to Final Market Value Fixed by Supreme Court; Rejects State’s Objection on Alternate Remedy

Case Name: Chander Pal Singh and Others v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 09 December 2025
Citation: CWP-25919-2024
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harkesh Manuja

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a writ petition filed by landowners who had sought re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court held that once the Land Acquisition Collector had granted them the benefit of re-determination subject to final adjudication, the petitioners were entitled to receive compensation at the rate finally fixed by the Supreme Court for the same acquisition. The plea of availability of an alternative remedy under Section 28-A(3) was rejected as misconceived.

Summary: The petitioners were landowners whose land had been acquired under the same notifications as other landowners who had successfully obtained enhanced compensation through reference proceedings. Having not sought a reference under Section 18, the petitioners invoked Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act seeking parity in compensation. Their application was allowed by the Land Acquisition Collector, who granted compensation at an interim rate while expressly making it subject to the outcome of pending adjudication in related cases and directing the petitioners to furnish indemnity or surety bonds.

Despite the Supreme Court having subsequently fixed the final market value for the same acquisition at a higher rate, the enhanced compensation was not released to the petitioners. The respondents contended that the petitioners ought to have pursued a further reference under Section 28-A(3) to claim the higher amount.

The High Court rejected this objection, holding that the Collector’s order itself contemplated payment of compensation in accordance with the final judicial determination and was intended to bind both parties to the eventual outcome. The Court observed that the purpose of the interim re-determination was to avoid accrual of statutory interest while safeguarding the rights of the State, and not to deprive the petitioners of the benefit of final enhancement. In such circumstances, insisting upon invocation of Section 28-A(3) was held to be wholly misplaced.

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The petitioners were held entitled to compensation at the rate finally determined by the Supreme Court for the acquisition in question, along with all statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.