186 (4 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sumer Chand deceased through LRs. Vs State of Haryana and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. Present: Mr. for the Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate and Ms.Surbhi Rana, Advocate for HSIIDC. HARKESH MANUJA, J. ( Vide this common order, a of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all have arisen out of common of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from 2. By way of present revision petition(s), challenge has been laid to an order dated 19.05.2023, passed by the learned Executing Court, whereby execution petition preferred at the instance of the petitioners/landowners was dismissed. 3. In the prese notified for acquisition on 03.11.1970 and an award was passed on 05.10.1972 assessing compensation @ Rs.3/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-176-2024 Date of Decision: Sumer Chand deceased through LRs. State of Haryana and ors. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. S.P. Khatri, Advocate for the petitioners. s. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate and Ms.Surbhi Rana, Advocate for HSIIDC. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Vide this common order, a bunch of 05 of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all have arisen out of common decision involving common facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from By way of present revision petition(s), challenge has been laid to an order dated 19.05.2023, passed by the learned Executing Court, whereby execution petition preferred at the instance of the petitioners/landowners was dismissed. In the present case, the land owned by the petitioners was notified for acquisition on 03.11.1970 and an award was passed on 05.10.1972 assessing compensation @ Rs.3/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.05.2026 ......Petitioners ....Respondents JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA s. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate and Ms.Surbhi Rana, Advocate for HSIIDC. bunch of 05 Civil Revisions, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all involving common facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from CR-176-2024. By way of present revision petition(s), challenge has been laid to an order dated 19.05.2023, passed by the learned Executing Court, whereby execution petition preferred at the instance of the nt case, the land owned by the petitioners was notified for acquisition on 03.11.1970 and an award was passed on 05.10.1972 assessing compensation @ Rs.3/- per sq. yard. Upon 1 , details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all involving common facts and question By way of present revision petition(s), challenge has been laid to an order dated 19.05.2023, passed by the learned Executing Court, whereby execution petition preferred at the instance of the nt case, the land owned by the petitioners was notified for acquisition on 03.11.1970 and an award was passed on per sq. yard. Upon SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.26 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 reference, it came to be enhanced @ Rs.25/- per sq. yard vide decision dated 03.10.1985 followed by further re-assessment to the tune of Rs.27/- per sq. yard by this Court vide its decision dated 11.01.1988. 4. Based thereupon, the petitioners/ landowners sought execution which ultimately came to be decided vide decision dated 13.01.2011, by recording that the same stands fully satisfied. 5. After a gap of almost 08 years, another execution application came to be filed at the instance of petitioners/ landowners in the month of February 2019. The said execution application was opposed at the instance of respondents. The learned Executing Court vide its order dated 19.05.2023 dismissed the execution application preferred at the instance of petitioners/ landowners. 6. Being aggrieved, the present revision petition(s) came to be filed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. 8. In the present case(s), admittedly the previous execution application preferred at the instance of petitioners/ landowners came to be disposed of vide its decision dated 13.01.2011. However, without there being any fresh assessment/ enhancement been made in favour of the petitioners/ landowners, fresh execution application came to be filed at their instance after around 08 years in February 2019 and that too without assailing/ disclosing the previous order dated 13.01.2011. 9. Furthermore, the reliance placed by the petitioners/ landowners upon the order dated 04.09.2018 passed by this Court in CR No.2873 of 2011 tilted as Naresh Chand Jain Vs. State of Haryana and ors., is also SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.26 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 misplaced as the same nowhere confers any right or entitlement in favour of the petitioners/ landowners. 10. In such circumstances, there being no illegality or perversity in the order dated 19.05.2023 passed by the learned Executing Court, no ground for interference is made out on the part of this Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. 11. Consequently, all revision petitions stand dismissed. 12. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 25.05.2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) sanjay JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Sr. No. Case No. 1. CR-205-2024 (O&M) 2. CR-221-2024 (O&M) 3. CR-232-2024 (O&M) 4. CR-650-2024 (O&M) 25.05.2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) sanjay JUDGE SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.26 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document