IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 130 CWP-19216-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.07.2026 JASWINDER SINGH ...Petitioner Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. …Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. R.K.S. Verka, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG Punjab Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.S. Kang, Advocate, Mr. Nitin Sachdeva, Advocate and Mr. Shubham Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 Mr. Hemant Bassi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Gursimran Kaur, Advocate and Ms. Saloni, Advocate for intervener (in CM-18500-18501-CWP-2025) Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, Court Commissioner *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. On 29.05.2026, the following order was passed by this Court:- “Learned State counsel on instructions from Navjeewan Chhabra, Tehsildar, Dharamkot informs that in terms of affidavit dated 19.05.2026 as well as the demarcation report of even date, the respondents shall deliver possession of area marked in Blue colour in the site plan attached along with the demarcation report to the petitioner. Since the dispute substantially pertains to DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.09 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-19216-2024 (O&M) -2- identification of land, the learned Court commissioner, Sh. Vikram Singh, Advocate is requested to visit the site again and ensure the delivery of possession of land as shown in blue colour in the site plan attached (measuring 16.16 marlas) along with the demarcation report. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondents-NHAI also assures that concerned official from the office of Project Director, Jalandhar shall also remain present on the spot. The parties to visit the spot for compliance on 04.06.2026 at 10:00 am. The Local Commissioner be paid a fee of Rs.2,00,000/- by the respondents. List on 08.07.2026. To be shown in the urgent list.” 2. Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, who was appointed as Court Commissioner, submits that land marked in blue colour in the site plan has been handed over to the petitioner, thus, order dated 29.05.2026 stands complied with. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he has not received compensation with respect to land which was acquired by respondent over and above aforesaid land marked in blue colour in the site plan. He further submits that his land was never acquired as per notification issued in 1963, thus, there was no question of acquisition of his land. His land was acquired in 2014 but compensation was not paid 4. As per reports prepared by Revenue Officers on the directions of this Court, the land was acquired in 1963 and compensation was paid. The petitioner is trying to plead that land was acquired in 2014 and compensation was never paid. These are pure disputed questions of DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.09 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-19216-2024 (O&M) -3- fact which require evidence to be led to prove whether land was acquired in 1963 or 2014, whether any compensation was paid to petitioner or his predecessor or not. This Court at this stage cannot decide question of compensation as the State is claiming that predecessors of petitioner have already been paid compensation in 1963. 5. The petition stands disposed of with liberty to petitioner to avail alternative remedies as permissible by law with respect to his claim for compensation. 6. The respondent-State shall proceed against its officers in accordance with law, independent of any observation made by this Court in interim orders. 7. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE July 08, 2026 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.09 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment