[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Devi @ Prewatnti @ Premwati And ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 April, 2026
CR-3254-2026 (O&M) --1--
200-u IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-3254-2026 (O&M)
Decided on:-18.04.2026
Prem Devi @ Premwatni @ Premwati and ors. ....Petitioners.
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
*****
HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)
1. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to
an order dated 29.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of learned
Additional District Judge, Sonipat-cum-Executing Court, whereby the
execution application/petition preferred at the instance of petitioners,
seeking directions to the respondents for making the payment of enhanced
compensation of the acquired land on the same terms as awarded in the
matter of other co-sharers, was dismissed.
2. Notice of motion.
3. Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of
respondents No.1 and 2, whereas, Mr. Akash Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr.
Nischal Chetanya Manchanda, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of
respondent No.3.
CR-3254-2026 (O&M) --2--
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the paper-book.
5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the execution
application/petition preferred at the instance of petitioners-landowners was
dismissed merely on the ground that they did not choose to prefer any
objection/reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
short "the Act"), yet filed an execution application based on an
award/determination made in favour of their co-sharers in the acquired land.
6. The aforesaid legal issue already stands decided by the Hon'ble
Apex Court vide decision dated 13.01.2026 passed in Civil Appeal
No(s).391 - 398 of 2026 (@SLP (C) No(S).4532-4539 of 2023), titled
"Ramphal & Ors. Versus Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure
Development Corporation Limited & Ors", wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has been pleased to uphold the claims made by the co-sharers with
regard to entitlement of similar amount of compensation as granted in favour
of their co-owners in the acquired land, however, restricted the award of
interest. Relevant paras 11 to 14 from the aforesaid decision dated
13.01.2026 are extracted hereunder:-
"11. In fact, we have been informed at the Bar by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants, which is not seriously
disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents, the fact that the land which was acquired, has been
utilized for the purposes of formation of industrial sites and
allotted to the needy persons in accordance with the Rules then
prevalent. In other words, the acquiring body is also benefited to
certain extent, which is an instrumentality of the State. Thus, the
scales have to be balanced in this scenario.
12. We are of the considered view that apart from the
compensation, the appellants would be entitled to the interest for a
period of five years to be reckoned from today backwards and we
make it explicitly clear that the appellants are not entitled for any
interest for any other period. We would also hasten to add that the
appellants would be entitled to all other consequential benefits
CR-3254-2026 (O&M) --3--
which flow from award of compensation and the respondent(s)
authorities shall compute the compensation as has been
determined by the award passed under Section 18 of the Act
and/or modified by the High Court or this Court in exercise of
appellate jurisdiction.
13. The said determination shall be made by the authorities
expeditiously and at any rate within an outer limit of three months
from the date of this order and the amounts so determined shall be
disbursed within an outer limit of three months for such
determination with interest as specified therein.
14. In the event of time line which has been fixed by this
Court is not adhered to by the respondent(s) authorities, they shall
be liable to pay interest @ nine per cent (9%) on the amounts so
determined from the date of such determination."
7. In view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set
aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Executing Court concerned
for fresh adjudication and in case the petitioners are found to be co-sharers
in the acquired land parcels alongwith those who preferred reference under
Section 18 or 28-A of the Act, the necessary amount as finally determined
alongwith statutory benefits and interest thereupon be released in their
favour within the time period stipulated in Ramphal's case (supra).
8. Needless to say that the determination of compensation and
release thereof in favour of the petitioners be made in terms of decision
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramphal's case (supra).
9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
18.04.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sonika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
