IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 106+212+215+216+217+218+224+102+204 CR-4562-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.09.2026 ARAWALI POWER COMPANY ...Petitioner Versus KULDEEP & ORS. ...Respondents And Sr. No. Case Number Appellant(s) Respondent(s) 2. CR-4569-2023 (O&M) Arawali Power Company Smt. Bharpai & Ors. 3. CR-4563-2023 (O&M) Arawali Power Company Dharmender & Ors. 4. CR-4571-2023 (O&M) Arawali Power Company Om Parkash & Ors. 5. CR-4572-2023 (O&M) Arawali Power Company Dharampal & Ors. 6. CR-4575-2023 (O&M) Arawali Power Company Surender Singh & Ors. 7. CR-4576-2023 (O&M) Arawali Power Company Smt. Bharpai & Ors. 8. CR-4580-2023 (O&M) Arawali Power Company Kartar Singh & Ors. 9. CR-4583-2023 (O&M) Arawali Power Company Baljeet Singh & Ors. 10. CR-4585-2023 (O&M) Arawali Power Company Satish & Ors. 11. CR-4592-2023 (O&M) Arawali Power Company Joginder Singh Tokas & Ors. 12. CR-6495-2023 (O&M) Bharpai & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors. 13. CR-6584-2023 (O&M) Om Parkash & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors. 14. CR-6595-2023 (O&M) Satish & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors. 15. CR-6732-2023 (O&M) Surender Singh (deceased) through LRs & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors. 16. CR-6140-2023 (O&M) Joginder Singh Tokas State of Haryana & Ors. 17. CR-6264-2023 (O&M) Smt. Bharpai & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors. 18. CR-6275-2023 (O&M) Dharmender & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors. 19. CR-6349-2023 (O&M) Dharampal & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors. 20. CR-6420-2023 (O&M) Kuldeep State of Haryana & Ors. 21. CR-6496-2023 (O&M) Kartar Singh (deceased) through LRs & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors. 22. CR-4570-2024 (O&M) Baljeet Singh State of Haryana & Ors. 23. CR-1115-2024 (O&M) Arawali Power Co. Pvt. Ltd. Sube Singh & Ors. 24. CR-1563-2024 (O&M) Satay Bhagwan & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors. 25. CR-1741-2024 (O&M) Satay Bhagwan & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors. 26. CR-4041-2024 (O&M) Umed Singh & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors. 27. CR-4085-2024 (O&M) Ram Kishan & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors. 28. CR-2451-2024 (O&M) Ramesh & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors. 29. CR-3159-2024 (O&M) Sher Singh & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors. 30. CR-9751-2025 (O&M) Rajesh (deceased) through LRs & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors. 31. CR-9754-2025(O&M) Sat Parkash (deceased) through LRs State of Haryana & Ors. 32. CR-7443-2023 (O&M) Virender Kumar Jakhar & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors. 33. CM-1336-CI-2026 in RFA-2283-2014 Bharpai and Ors. State of Haryana & Ors. 34. CR-984-2024 Arawali Power Co. Pvt. Ltd. Ramesh & Ors. 35. CR-1006-2024 (O&M) Arawali Power Co. Pvt. Ltd. Sher Singh & Ors. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.09.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -2- CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Varun Parkash, Advocate for the petitioner (in CR-4562-2023) for applicant (in CM-1336-CI-2026 in RFA-2283-2014) Mr. Vivek Sheoran, Advocate and Ms. Rhea, Advocate for the petitioner (in CR-4570-2024) and for respondent No.1 (in CR-4583-2023) Mr. Shailendra Jain, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Samkiti Jain, Advocate, Mr. B.K. Bagri, Advocate and Mr. Munish Sharma, Advocate for petitioner(s) (in CRs No.6495, 6584, 6595, 6792, 6140, 6264, 6275, 6349, 6420, 6496, 7443 of 2023, CRs No.3159, 9754 of 2024 and CRs No.9751 and 9754 of 2025) for the respondent/landowners (in CR Nos.4562, 4563, 4569, 4571, 4572, 4575, 4580, 4585, 4592 of 2023, CRs No.1115, 984, 1006 of 2024) Mr. Jasraj Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3 (in CR-4041-2024) Mr. Pawan Kumar Hooda, Advocate, Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, Advocate (through V.C), Mr. Ankit Nain, Advocate and Mr. Sumit Ruhal, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (in CRs No.1563, 1741, 4041, 4085 of 2024) Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for Arawali Power Company (in CRs No.4562, 4563, 4569, 4571, 4572, 4575, 4576, 4580, 4583, 4585, 4592, 6495, 6584, 6595, 6732, 6140, 6264, 6275, 6349, 6420, 6496, 7443 of 2023, CRs No. 4570, 1115, 984, 1006, 1563, 1741, 4085, 2451, 3159 of 2024, CRs No.9751, 9754 of 2025) Mr. Abhinav Kalia, DAG Haryana Mr. Abhishek Yadav, DAG Haryana Mr. Priyavrat Parashar, A.A.G. Haryana *** DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.09.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -3- JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. As common issues are involved in the captioned Civil Revisions filed by landowners as well as beneficiary agency, with the consent of both sides, are hereby disposed of by this common order. The beneficiary agency-Arawali Power Company has filed CM-1336-CI-2026 in already adjudicated appeal i.e. RFA-2283-2014 seeking clarification of order dated 01.05.2015 passed by this Court. The said application is directly connected with civil revisions filed by both parties, thus, it is hereby adjudicated along with the Civil Revisions. 2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CR-4562-2023. 3. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 28.07.2023 whereby Ld. Additional District Judge, Jhajjar has ordered for apportionment of the deposited amount towards interest. 4. The State of Haryana vide notification dated 16.01.2007 read with notification dated 12.04.2007 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) respectively acquired respondent’s land. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘Collector’) passed four different awards on 20.07.2007. The Collector awarded compensation @ ₹16,00,000/- per acre. The landowners approached this Court which vide order dated 04.02.2016 enhanced the market value from ₹16,00,000/- to ₹29,00,400/- per acre. The petitioner preferred SLP. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide interim order dated 11.11.2016 directed the petitioner to make deposit of 25% of enhanced amount. The petitioner on 30.11.2016 deposited 25% of the enhanced amount. The petitioner DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.09.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -4- deposited all statutory benefits along with interest. The respondent on 11.02.2017 withdrew its execution application before the Lok Adalat. The Supreme Court vide order dated 05.09.2017 reduced the market value to ₹25,00,000/- per acre. The petitioner deposited balanced 75% amount along with statutory benefits and interest on 18.01.2018. The respondent withdrew its execution application on 22.02.2018. The respondent filed another execution application seeking interest for the delayed period which occurred in filing appeal before this Court. The respondent also disputed calculation of principal amount as well as interest paid by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project, Selu, District Parbhani, Maharashtra 2020 AIR SC 717, Dhiraj Singh (D) Tr. LRs Etc. Vs. Haryana State & Ors. 2014(14) SCC 127, Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 896 and by this Court in Balmy Kesar (deceased) Vs. Land Acquisition Collector (SDO-C), Ajnala & Ors., Law Finder Doc ID#1690910 and Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Law Finder Doc ID#2865635 interest is not payable for the period during which there was delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Court. In the present case, there was delay of more than 600 days in filing appeal before this Court. The delay was condoned and appeal was admitted for final hearing. In the order whereby delay was condoned, it was not specifically mentioned that landowner would be entitled to interest even for the delayed period. As it was not specifically mentioned that interest would be payable for the delayed period, the landowners were not entitled to interest. The DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.09.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -5- petitioner never challenged interim order because as per law laid down by Supreme Court, interest is not payable for the delayed period. The doctrine of merger is inapplicable because petitioner never challenged interim order. In the absence of challenge to said order, this Court can clarify interim order to the effect that interest is not payable for the delayed period. 6. With respect to calculation of interest and appropriation of amount deposited towards interest he submits that Executing Court has not made calculation as per law laid down by Supreme Court in ‘Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India’, 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 207. The petitioner in compliance of orders of Supreme Court deposited 25% of differential amount of compensation which included market value, additional amount, interest and solatium. The moment 25% amount was deposited the liability of interest on the differential 25% amount ceased to exist. The petitioner did not deposit amount with Collector whereas amount was deposited with the Executing Court. While depositing amount with the Executing Court a calculation sheet was submitted. The landowners withdrew deposited amount and duly signed calculation sheet wherein it was categorically disclosed that deposited amount represents principal as well as interest. No intimation in the form of Form-D was required to be given to the landowners because calculation sheet duly signed by landowners amounts to intimation as well as acceptance by landowners. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that this Court vide order dated 10.02.2014 condoned the delay. Delay was not condoned subject to denial of interest for the delayed period. As and DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.09.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -6- when interest is denied, it is specifically mentioned in the order that landowner would not be entitled to interest for the delayed period. The order dated 10.02.2015 merged in the order dated 04.02.2016 whereby main appeal was adjudicated. In the main order, it was specifically mentioned that landowners shall be entitled to statutory benefits as per provisions of the Act. This order made it clear that landowners are entitled to interest even for the period during which there was delay in filing appeal before this Court. The petitioner preferred SLP before Supreme Court which was converted into civil appeal. Supreme Court partially allowed petitioner’s appeal and reduced the amount of compensation from ₹29,00,400/- per acre to ₹25,00,000/- per aacre. The petitioner neither in the appeal nor during the course of hearing raised question of interest. Order of this Court merged in the order of Supreme Court especially in view of the fact that petitioner’s SLP was not dismissed in limine whereas it was converted into civil appeal and thereafter was partially allowed. 8. With respect to interest and appropriation of the deposited amount, he submits that as per paragraph No.52 of judgment of Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh (supra), the amount deposited by judgment debtor has to be adjusted towards interest. Supreme Court neither in interim nor final order observed about heads whereunder amount had to be deposited. The petitioner deposited amount without intimation to the landowners. They at a later stage came to know about the deposit of compensation with Executing Court. They were released payment, however, no notice in Form-D was served upon landowners. In the absence of notice in Form-D, they could not ascertain whether amount DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.09.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -7- has been proposed to be adjusted towards compensation and statutory benefits besides interest. They had reason to believe that amount has been paid towards interest. The receipt produced by petitioner cannot be treated as intimation to landowners or their consent of manner of deposit by decree holder. The alleged calculation submitted before Court was never supplied to them. 9. Heard the arguments and perused the record. 10. From the pleadings and arguments of both sides, the following questions arise for the consideration of this Court: i) Whether the petitioner is liable to pay interest for the period of delay in filing appeal before this Court? ii) Whether Executing Court has rightly appropriated amount deposited by petitioner firstly towards interest and thereafter towards compensation? Question No. i) Whether the petitioner is liable to pay interest for the period of delay in filing appeal before this Court? 11. The petitioner is a private limited company which required land for setting up a power plant at village Jharli, District Jhajjar. Object of the setting up of plant was to augment shortage of electricity. For the aforesaid purpose, the State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act. The Collector passed award under Section 11. Landowners preferred application under Section 18 and Reference Court upheld the amount of compensation determined by the Collector. Many landowners preferred appeals before this Court which enhanced the amount of compensation from ₹16,00,000/- to ₹29,00,400/- per acre. A DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.09.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -8- very few landowners filed appeals along with application seeking condonation of delay. Period of delay was in the range of 600-700 days. This Court vide order dated 10.02.2014 condoned the delay. The order dated 10.02.2014 reads as:- “Delay applications Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Applications stands disposed of accordingly. xxx xxx xxx xxx Main Appeals Heard. Admitted. List along with RFA No.36 of 2012. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case.” 11.1 Appeal was ordered to be heard along with connected appeals. Delay was condoned on 10.02.2014 and main appeal was heard and decided on 04.02.2016 along with RFA No.266 of 2012. This Court while enhancing amount of compensation held that the landowners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits under the provisions of the Act. The operative part of the order dated 04.02.2016 reads as: “In view of what has been discussed hereinabove and taking a holistic view of the matter to do complete and substantial justice between the parties, in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases referred to hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the land owners in all these cases would be entitled to receive the compensation for their acquired land @ Rs.29,00,400/- per acre from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.09.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -9- No contrary evidence or judicial precedent was pressed into service nor any other argument was raised on behalf of either of the parties. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that two appeals filed by the beneficiary department, i.e. Aravali Power Company Private Limited have been found wholly misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance, thus, these these must fail and the same are hereby dismissed. The appeals and cross objection filed by the land owners deserve to be partly accepted and the same are hereby allowed to the extent indicated above. The land owners in these appeals are held entitled to receive the compensation for their acquired land @ Rs.29,00,400/- per acre from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Besides this, the land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them, under the relevant provisions of the Act. Resultantly, with the observations made above, all the aforesaid appeals stand disposed of, in the afore-said terms, however, with no order as to costs.” [Emphasis Supplied] 12. The petitioner preferred SLP before Supreme Court. Matter came up for consideration before Supreme Court on 11.11.2016 which granted leave and ordered the petitioner to deposit 25% of the difference between the amount payable as per Reference Court and the High Court. Order dated 11.11.2016 reads as: - “Delay condoned. Leave granted. 25% of the difference between the amount payable as per the Reference Court and the High Court shall be DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.09.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -10- deposited by the petitioner with the Reference Court within four weeks from today and the said amount shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondents concerned on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Reference Court. Subject to the above directions, there shall be stay of the implementation of the impugned judgment.” 13. The petitioner in compliance of order dated 11.11.2016 of the Supreme Court deposited 25% of the difference between the amount payable as per Reference Court and High Court. The Apex Court vide order dated 05.09.2017 partially allowed petitioner’s application and dismissed appeals of the landowners. The Apex Court reduced amount of compensation from ₹29,00,400/- to ₹25,00,000/- per acre. The Executing Court while releasing compensation has declined interest for the period there was delay in filing appeal before this Court. 14. The petitioner is claiming that Executing Court has rightly denied interest of 626 days i.e. period of delay in filing appeal before this Court. The landowners have filed revision seeking setting aside of order of Executing Court to the extent interest has been denied for the delayed period. The petitioner on one hand is opposing petition filed by landowners and on the other hand seeking clarification/modification of order dated 10.02.2014 whereby delay was condoned by this Court. As per petitioner, it is settled law that interest is not payable for the delayed period. The petitioner is also of the opinion that where Court has condoned delay without observing that interest would be payable, it should be assumed that Court has denied interest for the period of delay. Arguments of the petitioners are misconceived and deserve to be rejected. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.09.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -11- At the time of adjudication of application seeking condonation of delay, Appellate Court is not supposed to determine question of interest. The Appellate Court while condoning delay may observe that State would not be liable to pay interest for the period there was delay in filing the appeal. Wherever Appellate Court records that interest would not be payable, it means delay has been condoned subject to the condition of denial of interest. Wheresoever such a condition is not imposed, it cannot be assumed that Appellate Court has denied interest for the delayed period. The Appellate Court while passing final order may deny interest for the period of delay. In the case in hand, this Court while disposing of appeal has held that landowners shall be entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner is accepting that interest under Section 28 or 34 is a statutory benefit. The petitioner by paying interest for the period other than delay has accepted that Appellate Court while enhancing compensation has granted interest. The interim order whereby delay was condoned and final order whereby amount of compensation was enhanced and landowners were held entitled to statutory benefits make it clear that petitioner is liable to pay interest for the entire period i.e. including period of delay. Interim order whereby delay was condoned could be challenged, however, petitioner opted to accept it. The interim order merged in the final order and in the final order, there was direction to pay statutory benefits. 15. The petitioner preferred appeal before Supreme Court. A perusal of SLP filed before Supreme Court reveals that petitioner did not raise question of interest for the delayed period. There is nothing in the DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.09.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -12- interim or final order of the Supreme Court disclosing that petitioner at any stage disputed its liability qua interest for the delayed period. The petitioner has woken up because Executing Court travelling beyond the orders of this Court & Supreme Court has denied interest of 626 days i.e. period of delay in filing appeal before this Court. It is settled law that Executing Court is not required to go behind the decree. It is supposed to implement the decree. It cannot travel beyond the decree. The appellate order passed by this Court clearly holds the landowners entitled to statutory benefits. There is nothing in the interim and final order denying the interest for the period of delay. Interim and final orders passed by Supreme Court are also silent on the question of interest for the period of delay because petitioner never disputed its liability of interest for the period of delay. 16. It is true that in the judgments cited by petitioner, the Courts have denied interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal. The Appellate Courts have condoned delay subject to non-payment of interest for the period of delay. The interest has been denied either while passing interim or final order. In case where interest is granted by High Court, the Supreme Court has denied interest where appellant-State has specifically raised question of denial of interest. In the present case, the petitioner remained silent before this Court as well as Supreme Court. This Court while passing final order treated at par all the landowners either appeal was filed within limitation or beyond prescribed period of limitation. The petitioner was supposed to get final order dated 06.02.2016 modified from Supreme Court with DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.09.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -13- respect to grant of interest for the period of delay. The petitioner primarily disputed question of determination of compensation. The petitioner’s appeal was partially allowed by Supreme Court, thus, order dated 06.02.2016 passed by this Court merged in the final order passed by Supreme Court. The principle of merger is applicable and this Court cannot deny interest for the period there was delay in filing appeal before this Court. Argument of the petitioner that interim order passed by this Court whereby delay was condoned is an independent order and can be modified, cannot be countenanced because it has merged in the final order dated 04.02.2016 passed by this Court. The aforesaid order could be challenged before Supreme Court before passing of final order, however, it merged in the final order the moment appeal was finally adjudicated. In the final order, there was specific order to pay statutory benefits, thus, argument of the petitioners that non-grant of interest in the interim order whereby delay was condoned amounted to denial of interest ceased to exist. 17. In view of principle of merger; non-challenge of interim order whereby this Court condoned the delay; final order dated 04.02.2016 whereby landowners were held entitled to all the statutory benefits besides enhanced amount of compensation; non-challenge of interim order passed by this Court and modification of High Court’s final order dated 04.02.2016 by Supreme Court by order dated 05.09.2017, this Court is of the considered view that interim order dated 10.02.2014 passed by this Court cannot be modified and Executing Court has wrongly denied interest of 626 days i.e. period of delay in filing appeal before this Court. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.09.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -14- Question No. ii) Whether Executing Court has rightly appropriated amount deposited by the petitioner firstly towards interest and thereafter towards compensation? 18. The petitioner as well as landowners are claiming that interest should be calculated as per judgment of Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh (supra). This Court vide order dated 15.09.2022 dismissed petitioner’s Civil Revision No.3894 of 2022 forming an opinion that the landowners had no choice but to accept interim amount deposited by the petitioner. The Reference Court has rightly held that landowners shall be entitled to adjust payment received in a staggered manner firstly towards interest and thereafter towards principal. The petitioner filed SLP (C) No.22664 of 2022 which was disposed of vide order dated 06.05.2025 with an observation that the petitioner and respondent may submit calculation before the Reference Court which will decide as per Paragraph 51, 52 and 54 of the judgment in Gurpreet Singh (supra). The Executing Court has adjusted interim amount deposited by petitioner towards interest. The Executing Court has formed an opinion that entire amount deposited at interim stage should be adjusted towards interest. The Reference Court has noticed judgment of Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh (supra). 19. The petitioner is claiming that while depositing 25% as per orders of Supreme Court, the petitioner had categorically expressed its intention of adjustment of deposited amount towards principal and interest. The petitioner before Executing Court submitted calculation of apportionment along with application. The 25% amount ordered to be deposited by Supreme Court was calculated head-wise i.e. market value, DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.09.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -15- additional compensation (12% p.a.), solatium (30%), interest @ 9% for first year and 15% p.a. for the remaining period. The petitioner had deposited amount with respect to different landowners on different dates. There were more than 800 landowners. As an example, the petitioner produced application dated 23.09.2016 filed before Executing Court and order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the Executing Court. For the ready reference, order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the Executing Court reads as below: “An application for payment of enhanced compensation as per direction/order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 26.8.2016, passed in SLP No. 18034/2016, 18245/2016, 18622/2016, 19468/2016 and 13761/2016 filed by A.P.C.P.L. Jharli against Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh passed in RFA'S No.266/12, 33/2012, 4991/2014, 4719/13, 2059/2014 decided on 4.2.2016, filed today. It be checked and registered. In compliance of the above referred orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Arawali Power Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joginder Singh Tokash and ors.', passed on 26.8.2016, has attached cheque No.686963 and 686964, dated 22.9.2016 of amount of Rs. 12745743/- + 19854972/- total amount 32600715/- (Rupees Three Crore Twenty Six Lac Seven Hundred Fifteen Only) drawn on Punjab National Bank Railway Road, Bahadurgarh on account of payment of enhanced compensation amount in RFA's No.266/12, 33/2012, 4991/2014, 4719/13, 2059/2014 decided on 4.2.2016 for the acquired land of village Goria, Jharli, Mohanbari and Khanpur Khurd for setting up of Thermal Power Project by Aravali Power Company Private Limited. The A.P.R. of enhanced compensation amount duly prepared by the applicant office, copy of order of the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.09.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -16- Court is also enclosed. The office of this court is directed to deposit the cheques of compensation amount, immediately and the same may be disbursed to the land owners/decree holders as per detail given in the enclosed A.P.R. submitted by the applicant. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.” 20. From the perusal of above-quoted order, it is evident that petitioner had submitted apportionment chart along with application form. It is part of the record of Executing Court. The calculations sheet prepared by petitioner was duly signed by the landowners. The landowners were duly identified by Numberdar of the village. They have signed on a sheet which was disclosing apportionment of the deposited amount towards different heads. 21. Learned counsel for the landowners has vehemently pleaded that landowners were unaware of the appropriation of the amount deposited by petitioner. They were not given intimation in Form-D. They claim that Collector submits details of the deposit made by the State/beneficiary to the Executing Court and intimation in Form D is sent to the landowners. In the present case, the landowners have not received intimation, thus, partial amount deposited by petitioner was required to be adjusted towards interest. The petitioner and landowners are relying upon judgment of Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh (supra). Relevant extracts of judgment read as:- “51. Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd., (1996)2 SCC 71 : (1995) Supp. 5 SCR 790 also indicates that when an award-decree is passed specifying the amounts under different heads like the amount DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.09.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -17- under Section 23(1), the amount under Section 23(2), the amount under Section 23(1A) and the interest under Section 28 and the judgment debtor makes a deposit of specified sums under these different heads, it will amount to the judgment debtor intimating the decree holder as to how the sum deposited is to be applied in discharge of the obligation of the judgment debtor. Once a decree holder receives the payment of the sums thus deposited, he would be accepting the appropriation made by the judgment debtor under the award decree on the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act. This part of the reasoning in Prem Nath Kapur (supra) is, of course, also based on the reasoning that there is some inconsistency in Order 21 Rule 1 of the Code and the scheme of the Act. Prem Nath Kapur (supra) also indicates that when the decree itself specifies the amount payable under different heads (the decree has to do so under Section 26 of the Act) and amounts are deposited towards those different heads, the appropriation would be on the basis of the direction under the decree which must be taken to be one for crediting the various sums paid under particular heads. On the scheme of the Act, especially the wording of Section 34 and Section 28 of the Act it is not possible to say that the said approach made in Prem Nath Kapur (supra) is erroneous or is unreasonable or is not a line of approach that is not warranted. Therefore, when the judgment debtor State makes a deposit along with the calculation appropriating distinct sums towards various heads of compensation as awarded by the reference court or by the appellate court in the appellate decree, and the amount is received by the decree holder, the decree holder must be taken to be not entitled to seek an appropriation as if the judgment debtor has not made any intimation and that he is entitled to appropriate at his volition. Considering the scheme of compensation under the Act in the context of the specific nature of the items specifically referred to in Section 23 of the Act, we are of the view that the approach adopted in Prem Nath Kapur (supra) is justified. A reappropriation DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.09.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -18- by seeking to reopen the satisfaction already rendered might result in interest being made payable even on that part of the principal amount that had already been deposited and received by the decree holder and that would be in the realm of unjust enrichment. 52. What is to happen when a part of the amount awarded by the reference court or by the appellate court is deposited pursuant to an interim order of the appellate court or of the further appellate court and the awardee is given the liberty to withdraw that amount? In such a case, the amount would be received by the decree holder on the strength of the interim order and the appropriation will be subject to the decision in the appeal or the further appeal and the direction, if any, contained therein. In such a case, if the appeal is disposed of in his favour, the decree holder would be entitled to appropriate the amount already received by him pursuant to the interim order first towards interest then towards costs and the balance towards principal as on date of the withdrawal of the amount and claim interest on the balance amount of enhanced compensation by levying execution. But on that part appropriated towards the principal, the interest would cease from the date on which the amount is received by the awardee. Of course, if while passing the interim order, the court had indicated as to how the deposited amount is to be appropriated, that direction will prevail and the appropriation could only be done on the basis of that direction. 53. Thus, on the whole, we are satisfied that the essential ratio in the Prem Nath Kapur (supra) on appropriation being at different stages is justified though if at a particular stage there is a shortfall, the awardee decree holder would be entitled to appropriate the same on the general principle of appropriation, first towards interest, then towards costs and then towards the principal, unless, of course, the deposit is indicated to be towards specified heads by the judgment debtor while making the deposit intimating the decree- DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.09.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -19- holder of his intention. We, thus, approve the ratio of Prem Nath Kapur (supra) on the aspect of appropriation.” 22. From the reading of aforesaid judgment, it is evident that Paragraph 52 specifically deals with deposit of part of compensation as per orders of the Appellate Court. It holds that decree-holder would be entitled to appropriate the amount received by him firstly towards interest and then towards the principal. Para 51 of the judgment holds that when the judgment debtor makes a deposit along with calculation appropriating distinct sums towards various heads of the compensation as awarded by the Reference Court or by the Appellate Court, the decree-holder must be taken to be not entitled to seek an appropriation as if the judgment debtor has not made any intimation and he is not entitled to appropriate at his volition. Para 53 further clarifies that appropriation at different stages is justified though if at a particular stage there is shortfall, the awardee decree-holder would be entitled to appropriate firstly towards interest and then towards principal unless the deposit is intimated to be towards specified heads and there is intimation to the decree-holder. 23. The landowners are not disputing the fact that judgment debtor may express its intention to appropriate distinct sums towards various heads of the compensation. They are claiming that as per afore- cited judgment, intimation must be given to decree-holder and in the present case, intimation in the form of Form-D was not given to them. Contention of the landowners/decree-holder is misconceived because as per judgment of Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd., (1996)2 SCC 71 as approved by Supreme Court in Gurpreet DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.09.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -20- Singh (supra), the judgment debtor may make deposit under distinct heads and if the decree holder accepts the amount he cannot seek re- appropriation because it would amount to unjust enrichment. In the present case, the petitioner submitted calculation sheet appropriating deposited amount towards various heads. The calculation sheet was duly signed by landowners while accepting compensation. The petitioner has shown to this Court calculation sheet duly signed by the landowners. The petitioner by furnishing calculation sheet expressed its intention of appropriation of distinct sums towards various heads. The landowners duly accepted said calculation by withdrawing deposited amount and further appending their signatures on the calculation sheet. This amounted to due intimation to them and they cannot claim separate intimation in Form-D from Collector. The amount, as ordered by Supreme Court, was deposited with Executing Court and landowners withdrew the same. There was no question of intimation by Collector in Form-D. Filing of calculation sheet and signatures of landowners over calculation sheet amounted to compliance of requirement of expression of intention of judgment debtor and intimation to decree-holders. There was not only intimation to the landowners but also their consent. 24. In the backdrop, this Court is of the considered opinion that amount deposited by petitioner pursuant to interim orders of Supreme Court was required to be appropriated towards various heads and could not be appropriated towards total interest liability which was finalized after disposal of the appeal. Appropriation of amount deposited as per interim orders of Supreme Court towards interest would amount to unjust enrichment. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.09.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -21- 25. In the wake of above discussion and findings, question of interest on the period of delay in filing appeals before this Court is answered against the petitioner and question of appropriation of amount deposited as per interim order of the Supreme Court against the landowners. 26. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE September 03, 2026 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.09.10 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment