146 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M.L SHARMA STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Sushil K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Komal Mr. H.S. Gill, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 HARKESH MANUJA Present revision petition prayer:- “Revision Petition under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 29.02.2024 (Annexure P Court in Exe which the execu applicability of premium 12% in addition to the market value of the land from the date of the earlier notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the date of the subse has been acquired by interpreting premium i.e. year to year basis and not from the earlier date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act to the date of the subsequent notification vide which the land has been acquired. The said interpretation is against the golden rule of interpretation and is also against the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments. Further, by erroneously interpreting the aforesaid benefithas virtually deprived the premium of 12% cumulatively for eleven (11) months as the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 21.12.1994 and the earlier notification on the basis of the premium is to be given is of 29.01.1990 29.01.1994; whereas, it should have been given to 21.12.1994. Hence, by ibid interpretation the Petitioner has been deprived of the premium of 12% for eleven (11) months i.e. from the 29.01 calculating the premium up to 29.01.1994 instead of 29.12.1994 the premium comes to Rs.688/- golden rule of interpretation and thus t Learned Executing Court deserves to be set be directed IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4641-2025 Date of Decision: Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA . Sushil K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana. Mr. H.S. Gill, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) resent revision petition(s) came to be filed with the following Revision Petition under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 29.02.2024 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Learned Executing Court in Exe-193-2015 titled as "M.L. Sharma Vs. State of Haryana & Others", vide which the execution application has been dismissed on erroneous interpretation of applicability of premium 12% in addition to the market value of the land from the date of the earlier notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the date of the subsequent notification (i.e. the notification in which the land of the Petitioner has been acquired by interpreting premium i.e. year to year basis and not from the earlier date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act to the date of the subsequent ication vide which the land has been acquired. The said interpretation is against the golden rule of interpretation and is also against the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments. Further, by erroneously interpreting aforesaid benefithas virtually deprived the premium of 12% cumulatively for eleven (11) months as the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 21.12.1994 and the earlier notification on the basis of the premium is to be given is of 29.01.1990 and while interpreting the same the premium has been given only to 29.01.1994; whereas, it should have been given to 21.12.1994. Hence, by ibid interpretation the Petitioner has been deprived of the premium of 12% for eleven (11) months i.e. from the 29.01.1994 to 21.12.1994 and the cumulative benefit, by calculating the premium up to 29.01.1994 instead of 29.12.1994 the premium comes per square yard. Being so, the interpretation is erroneous, against the golden rule of interpretation and thus the order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Learned Executing Court deserves to be set-aside and the Respondents deserves to directed to calculate the amount and give IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH and other connected cases Date of Decision: May 08, 2026 ........Petitioner ........Respondents HARKESH MANUJA . Sushil K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Sharma, DAG, Haryana. Mr. H.S. Gill, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4- HSVP. came to be filed with the following Revision Petition under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India for setting 9), passed by the Learned Executing 2015 titled as "M.L. Sharma Vs. State of Haryana & Others", vide tion application has been dismissed on erroneous interpretation of applicability of premium 12% in addition to the market value of the land from the date of the earlier notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the date quent notification (i.e. the notification in which the land of the Petitioner has been acquired by interpreting premium i.e. year to year basis and not from the earlier date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act to the date of the subsequent ication vide which the land has been acquired. The said interpretation is against the golden rule of interpretation and is also against the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments. Further, by erroneously interpreting aforesaid benefithas virtually deprived the premium of 12% cumulatively for eleven (11) months as the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 21.12.1994 and the earlier notification on the basis of the premium is to be given is of and while interpreting the same the premium has been given only to 29.01.1994; whereas, it should have been given to 21.12.1994. Hence, by ibid interpretation the Petitioner has been deprived of the premium of 12% for eleven (11) .1994 to 21.12.1994 and the cumulative benefit, by calculating the premium up to 29.01.1994 instead of 29.12.1994 the premium comes per square yard. Being so, the interpretation is erroneous, against the he order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the aside and the Respondents deserves to and give the premium from 29.01.1994 to and other connected cases May 08, 2026 came to be filed with the following Revision Petition under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India for setting 9), passed by the Learned Executing 2015 titled as "M.L. Sharma Vs. State of Haryana & Others", vide tion application has been dismissed on erroneous interpretation of applicability of premium 12% in addition to the market value of the land from the date of the earlier notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the date quent notification (i.e. the notification in which the land of the Petitioner has been acquired by interpreting premium i.e. year to year basis and not from the earlier date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act to the date of the subsequent ication vide which the land has been acquired. The said interpretation is against the golden rule of interpretation and is also against the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments. Further, by erroneously interpreting aforesaid benefithas virtually deprived the premium of 12% cumulatively for eleven (11) months as the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 21.12.1994 and the earlier notification on the basis of the premium is to be given is of and while interpreting the same the premium has been given only to 29.01.1994; whereas, it should have been given to 21.12.1994. Hence, by ibid interpretation the Petitioner has been deprived of the premium of 12% for eleven (11) .1994 to 21.12.1994 and the cumulative benefit, by calculating the premium up to 29.01.1994 instead of 29.12.1994 the premium comes per square yard. Being so, the interpretation is erroneous, against the he order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the aside and the Respondents deserves to TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.05.13 14:11 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-4641-2025 and other connected cases -2- 21.12.1994 cumulatively1.e. from the date of the earlier notification to the date of the subsequent notification. And/or Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be kindly be passed in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.” Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4-HSVP informs that amount of Rs.71,98,330/- in favour of petitioner(s) stands sanctioned by the Administrator, HSVP, Panchkula on 07.05.2026 and the payment shall be released in their favour within 5 working days. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) does not press the present petition. Accordingly, the present petition(s) are disposed of. However, it is made clear that in case the payment is not released in favour of petitioner(s), the Chief Controller of Finance, HSVP, Headquarter at Panchkula shall be liable to pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/- in each of the petition(s). It is also made clear that cost shall be paid by the official from his own pocket and the same shall not be treated as a burden on the State Exchequer. In case of default, the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue by District Magistrate, Panchkula within one month from the date of default. A copy of this order be forwarded to Chief Controller of Finance, Panchkula with immediate effect. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on connected case files. 08.05.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.05.13 14:11 I agree to specified portions of this document