CR-5211- 304 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Shashi Bhushan Mittal (Deceased) through LR and ors. State of Haryana and ors. CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) CM-5105 who is also petitioner No.3 subject to all just exceptions. The applicant the application are representative Sanjeev Mittal, -2023 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CM CR Date of Decision: Shashi Bhushan Mittal (Deceased) through LR and ors. Versus State of Haryana and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.Nitin Jain, Advocate and Mr. Parv Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms.Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 5105-CII-2025 Application for impleading the LRs of petitioner No.1 (a) who is also petitioner No.3-Sanjeev Mittal is subject to all just exceptions. The applicant the application are ordered to be brought on record as legal representatives of petitioner No.1 (a) who is also petitioner No.3 Sanjeev Mittal, to pursue the present appeal. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-5105-CII-2025 in/and CR-5211-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.03.2026 Shashi Bhushan Mittal (Deceased) through LR and ors. …..Petitioners …..Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Nitin Jain, Advocate and , Advocate Ms.Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana. for impleading the LRs of petitioner No.1 (a) Sanjeev Mittal is allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. The applicants mentioned in para 2 of ordered to be brought on record as legal petitioner No.1 (a) who is also petitioner No.3 to pursue the present appeal. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place. for impleading the LRs of petitioner No.1 (a) allowed, as prayed for, para 2 of ordered to be brought on record as legal petitioner No.1 (a) who is also petitioner No.3- SANJAY GUPTA 2026.03.12 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5211- MAIN CAS laid to an order dated Additional District Judge, whereby the execution petition preferred at the instance of petitioner, seeking directions to the respondents for making the payment of compensation of the acquired land in the same terms of award/judgment 2. through the 3. preferred at the instance of petitioner(s) merely on the ground that they did not choose to prefer any objection under Section 18 or 28 “the Act”), yet filed an execution application based on an award/determination made in favour of their co acquired land. 4. Hon’ble Apex Court vide decision dated 13.01.202 Appeal No(s).391 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 -2023 (O&M) [2] MAIN CASE: By way of present revision petition challenge has been laid to an order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar whereby the execution petition preferred at the instance of petitioner, 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 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. A perusal of the order shows that the execution petition preferred at the instance of petitioner(s) 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 “the Act”), yet filed an execution application based on an award/determination made in favour of their co acquired land. The aforesaid legal issue already stands decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide decision dated 13.01.202 No(s).391 - 398 of 2026 (@ 2023), titled “Ramphal & Ors. Versus Haryana State Industrial nd 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 By way of present revision petition challenge has been passed by the Court of learned Yamuna Nagar-cum-Executing Court, whereby the execution petition preferred at the instance of petitioner, seeking directions to the respondents for making the payment of compensation of the acquired land in the same terms of in the matter of other co-sharer, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone 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 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 The aforesaid legal issue already stands decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide decision dated 13.01.2026 passed in Civil 398 of 2026 (@ SLP (C) No(S).4532-4539 of 2023), titled “Ramphal & Ors. Versus Haryana State Industrial nd Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Ors wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to uphold the sharers with regard to entitlement of similar By way of present revision petition challenge has been passed by the Court of learned Executing Court, whereby the execution petition preferred at the instance of petitioner, seeking directions to the respondents for making the payment of compensation of the acquired land in the same terms of sharer, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone A perusal of the order shows that the execution petition landowner(s) was dismissed merely on the ground that they did not choose to prefer any objection (for short “the Act”), yet filed an execution application based on an sharers in the The aforesaid legal issue already stands decided by the Civil 4539 of 2023), titled “Ramphal & Ors. Versus Haryana State Industrial nd Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Ors”, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to uphold the sharers with regard to entitlement of similar SANJAY GUPTA 2026.03.12 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5211- amount of compensation as granted in favour of their co the acquired land, however, restricted the award of in paras 11 to 14 from the aforesaid decision dated 13.01.2026 are extracted hereunder: -2023 (O&M) [3] amount of compensation as granted in favour of their co the acquired land, however, restricted the award of in 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 senio 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 acqui 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 inte 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 appellate jurisdiction. 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 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. 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. owners in terest. Relevant paras 11 to 14 from the aforesaid decision dated 13.01.2026 are In fact, we have been informed at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, which is not seriously disputed by r 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 ring body is also benefited to certain extent, which is an instrumentality of the State. Thus, the We are of the considered view that apart from the compensation, the appellants would be rest 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 of SANJAY GUPTA 2026.03.12 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5211- 5. 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 alongwith those who preferred reference under Section 18 or 28 the Act, the necessary amount as determined finally along statutory benefits and interest thereupon be released in their favour within the time period stipulated in 6. and release thereof in favour of the petitioner(s) be made in decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (supra). -2023 (O&M) [4] 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 be disbursed within an outer limit o 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.” 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 uting 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 the Act, the necessary amount as determined finally along statutory benefits and interest thereupon be released in their favour within the time period stipulated in Ramphal’s case Needless to say that the determination of compensation and release thereof in favour of the petitioner(s) be made in decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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. 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.” 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 uting Court concerned for fresh adjudication and in case the 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 Ramphal’s case (supra). 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 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 amounts so determined shall f three months for such determination with interest as 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 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 uting Court concerned for fresh adjudication and in case the sharers in the acquired land parcels A of with statutory benefits and interest thereupon be released in their favour Needless to say that the determination of compensation terms of Ramphal’s case SANJAY GUPTA 2026.03.12 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5211- 7. stand disposed of. 11.03.2026 sanjay -2023 (O&M) [5] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.03.12 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document