EFA-6-2023 (O&M) --1-- 211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH EFA-6-2023 (O&M) Decided on:-03.07.2026 Shamsher ….Appellant. vs. State of Haryana and others ….Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.Vineet Jakhar, Advocate with Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Raj Partap Singh Brar, AAG, Haryana. ***** HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral) 1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been made to an order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar-cum- Executing Court in Execution Petition No. EXE-1-2020, titled “Shamsher vs. State of Haryana and others” whereby the execution petition preferred at the instance of appellant, seeking directions to the respondents for making the payment of compensation of the acquired land in the same terms of judgment in the matter of other co-sharer, was dismissed. 2. In the present case, some land owned by the appellant-landowner situated within the revenue estate of Village Mohanbari, District Jhajjar, came to be acquired for the public purpose of construction of Arawali Power Company Pvt. Ltd thermal power project and award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. 3. Being aggrieved thereof, some of the co-sharer preferred reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition, Act 1894, which was dismissed vide order dated 21.09.2011. Being dissatisfied, Regular First Appeal SONIKA 2026.07.06 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document EFA-6-2023 (O&M) --2-- was preferred, which came to be allowed vide order dated 27.11.2017. 4. Based on the aforesaid, the appellant preferred Execution Petition No.1 of 2020. The said Execution Application came to be dismissed on the ground that he was not the appellant before this Court in RFA No.3446 of 2017. Hence, the present Execution First Appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. 6. A perusal of the order shows that the execution petition preferred at the instance of appellant-landowner was dismissed merely on the ground that the present appellant was neither party nor his grievances were raised by other co-sharers in the reference petition, yet filed an execution application based on an determination made in favour of his co-sharers in the acquired land. 7. 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 SONIKA 2026.07.06 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document EFA-6-2023 (O&M) --3-- 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 6 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.” 8. In view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present appeal 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 appellant is found to be co-sharer in the acquired land parcels alongwith those who preferred Regular First Appeal, 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). 9. Needless to say that the determination of compensation including interest payable thereupon and release thereof in favour of the appellant be made in terms of decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramphal’s case (supra). 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 03.07.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sonika JUDGE (i) Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable: Yes/ No SONIKA 2026.07.06 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document