[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Layak Ram vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 March, 2026
1
CR No.3169 of 2023 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
163
CR No.3169 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision:
Decision:18
18.
18.03.2026
.2026
LAYAK RAM ......Petitioner
......Petitioner
Vs
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ....Respondents
....Respondents
MANUJA
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ A
Present: Ms. Bhoomika Khatri, Advocate for
Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav,, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhinav Kalia, D.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)
[1]. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to an
order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge,
Jhajjar-cum-Executing
Executing Court, whereby the execution petition preferre
preferredd at the
instance of the petitioner, seeking
king directions to the respondents for making the
payment of compensation for the acquired land in the same terms as the
award/judgment rendered in the matter of other co
co-sharers, was dismissed.
[2 ] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
paper-book.
[3 ] A perusal of the order shows that the execution petition preferred at
the instance of petitioner-landowner
petitioner was dismissed merely on the ground that he
did not choose to prefer any objection under Section 18 or 28
28-A
A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"),
Act"), yet filed an execution application
based on an award/determination made in favour of their co
co-sharers
sharers in the acquired
land.
1 of 3
[4 ] 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
No(S).4532--4539 of 2023), titled "Ramphal & Ors. Versus
2026 (@slp (C) No(S).4532
Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited &
Ors", wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to uphold the claims made
by the co-sharers
sharers with regard to entitlement of similar amount of compensation as
granted in favour of their co-owners
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:-
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,
ts, 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
certai
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
which flow from
rom 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
he 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
2 of 3
disbursed within an outer limit of three months for such
determination
tion 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."
[5 ] In view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex 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 adjudicati
adjudication
on and
in case the petitioner is found to be co-sharer
sharer in the acquired land parcels
alongwith those who preferred reference under Section 18 or 28-A
A of the Act, the
necessary amount as determined finally alongwith statutory benefits and interest
thereupon be released in his favour within the time period stipulated in Ramphal's
case (supra).
[6 ] Needless to say that the determina
determination
tion of compensation and release
thereof
eof in favour of the petitioner be made in terms of decision rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramphal's case (supra).
[7 ] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
off.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
March 18,
18, 2026
2026 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
