[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhuraram And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 April, 2026
182
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 8916 of 2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 27.04.2026
Bhuraram and others
.......... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Monu Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Rohit Mittal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to
an order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional
District Judge, Narnaul-cum-Executing Court, whereby the execution
petition preferred at the instance of petitioners, seeking directions to the
respondents for making the payment of compensation of the acquired land
in the same terms of award/judgment as in the matter of other co-sharer,
was dismissed.
[2] Notice of motion.
[3] On asking of the Court, Ms. Komal Sharma, Deputy
Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of all the
respondents.
[4] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the paper-book.
CR No. 8916 of 2025 (O&M) -2-
[5] A perusal of the order shows that the execution petition
preferred at the instance of petitioner(s)-landowner(s) was dismissed
merely on the ground that they did not choose to prefer any objection
under Section 18 or 28-A 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.
CR No. 8916 of 2025 (O&M) -3-
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 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 petitioner(s) 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
determined finally alongwith statutory benefits and interest thereupon be
released in their favour within the time period stipulated in Ramphal's
case (supra).
CR No. 8916 of 2025 (O&M) -4-
[8] Needless to say that the determination of compensation and
release thereof in favour of the petitioner(s) 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 off.
April 27, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
'dk kamra' JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
