[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana Shehari Vikas Pradhikaran ( ... vs Bharat Pal And Ors. on 18 April, 2026
CR-3282-2026 (O&M) --1--
201-u IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-3282-2026 (O&M)
Decided on:-18.04.2026
Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran
thr. its Administrator, Sector 12, Faridabad ....Petitioner..
vs.
Bharatpal and others ....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Advocate and
Mr. Yaseen Sethi, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
*****
HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)
1. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to
an order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional District
Judge, Palwal, whereby respondents No.10 to 21 herein, who were arrayed
as proforma respondents in RFA-1865-2019 have been directed to be
released the benefit of enhanced compensation.
2. In the present case, some land owned by respondents No.1 to 21
forming part of revenue estate of village Palwal, Tehsil and District Palwal,
came to be acquired vide notifications dated 15.06.2006 and 14.06.2007,
issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as "1894 Act"), followed by award No.07 dated
09.06.2009 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, "LAC"),
granting the market value @ Rs.16,00,000/- per acre. The acquisition was
CR-3282-2026 (O&M) --2--
carried out for the public purpose, namely, for development and utilization
of land for Sector 12 (HUDA Palwal) for residential and commercial
purposes.
3. Aggrieved of the determination made by LAC, the respondents
No.1 to 21 filed their objections under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. Vide
award dated 16.03.2013, the learned Reference Court re-assessed the market
value of the acquired land to Rs.24,48,396/- per acre i.e. Rs.505.87 per
square yard. Aggrieved against the same, respondents No.10 to 21 did not
file Regular First Appeal, whereas, respondents No.1 to 9 preferred RFA-
1865-2019. In the said Regular First Appeal, respondents No.10 to 21 were
impleaded as proforma respondents and the same was decided by this Court
vide order dated 31.05.2019 and the market value was enhanced to Rs.640/-
per square yard. Based thereupon, respondents No.1 to 21 filed execution
application, which came to be allowed by the learned Executing Court while
directing the petitioner to release the benefit of enhanced compensation to
the tune of Rs.640/- per square yard as well as other statutory benefits in
favour of respondents No.1 to 21 vide order dated 14.07.2025. It is the said
order which has been impugned by way of present revision petition.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of
respondents-State.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the paper book.
5. In terms of Order 41 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, once respondents No.10 to 21 were impleaded as proforma
CR-3282-2026 (O&M) --3--
respondents in the Regular First Appeal No.1865 of 2019, the decision
passed therein with respect to the enhanced compensation also applied to
them. As such, they were well within their rights to file the execution
application(s) seeking the benefit of the enhanced compensation. Reference
in this regard may be made to the order dated 01.12.2022 passed by this
Court in RFA No. 832 of 2022. The relevant part of the said order is
extracted hereinafter:-
" Sh. Dalel Singh, Sh. Subhash, Sh. Ramesh Kumar and
Sh. Bijender Singh who are the sons of Sh. Lal Chand were joint
owners of the property which was acquired by the State of
Haryana. All the brothers noted above filed a joint application to
the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
with a request to refer the matter to the Court. On being referred,
the Reference Court vide LAC Case No.937 of 2010, decided on
30.10.2015, passed a common judgment deciding the joint claim
of all the brothers Sh. Subhash, Sh. Ramesh Kumar and Sh.
Bijender Singh filed an appeal while Sh. Dalel Singh (appellant)
was impleaded as proforma respondent as he was not available
for signing the required documents. The appeal filed by the
aforesaid three brothers was allowed. This appeal has been filed
by Sh. Dalel Singh claiming the same amount of compensation. In
fact, the case of the appellant already stands decided along with
his remaining three brothers. Once a joint reference petition was
filed by all the four brothers, which was decided by the Reference
Court by a common judgment, then, the appeal, even if filed by
only three brothers, shall enure to the benefit of the appellant.
There was a joint decree in favour of four brothers. It is not the
case of the appellant that while filing the appeal by his brothers,
the rights of appellant were relinquished or surrendered.
In such a situation, in terms of Order XLI Rule 4 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant shall be deemed to
CR-3282-2026 (O&M) --4--
be entitled to the same amount as payable to the remaining three
brothers in terms of judgment passed in Regular First Appeal
No.458 of 2016, titled as "M/s Satkarta Realtors (P) Ltd. Vs. State
of Haryana and others".
7. In the light of what has been discussed herein above, this Court
does not find any merit in the instant revision petition, as such, the same
stands dismissed. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 passed
by the learned Additional District Judge, Palwal, is hereby upheld. The
learned Executing Court is requested to proceed further in accordance with
law towards release of enhanced compensation in favour of respondents
No.1 to 21 in terms of decision dated 31.05.2019 passed in RFA-1865-2019.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.
18.04.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sonika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/ No
