EFA-12-2025 (O&M) 207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA RAM SAWARUP @ RAM ROOP (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. CORAM: Present:- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 1. order dated Rohtak. 2. landowners situated within the revenue District Rohtak out of Sector 26, HSVP Rohtak. The Land Acquisition Collector vide its Award dated Rs.20,00,000/ 3. their objections, which were referred to the competent court vide LAC Case No.855 of 2010. The same was decided on 31.05.20 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH EFA-12- Date of Decision: RAM SAWARUP @ RAM ROOP (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr.Shivansh Malik, Advocate for the Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana. Mr. H.S.Gill, Advocate for HSVP. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present appeal challenge has been made to an order dated 30.09.2025 passed by learned Executing Court In the present case, some land owned by the appellants landowners situated within the revenue District Rohtak, came to be acquired for the public purpose of carving out of Sector 26, HSVP Rohtak. The Land Acquisition Collector vide its Award dated 03.07.2009 assessed the market value 20,00,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved thereof, the appellants their objections, which were referred to the competent court vide LAC Case No.855 of 2010. The same was decided on 31.05.20 [1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.12.2025 RAM SAWARUP @ RAM ROOP (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH ........ APPELLANTS ........ RESPONDENTS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA , Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana. Mr. H.S.Gill, Advocate for HSVP. challenge has been made to an 0.09.2025 passed by learned Executing Court at In the present case, some land owned by the appellants landowners situated within the revenue estate of Village Pehrawar, came to be acquired for the public purpose of carving out of Sector 26, HSVP Rohtak. The Land Acquisition Collector vide assessed the market value @ Being aggrieved thereof, the appellants-landowners filed their objections, which were referred to the competent court vide LAC Case No.855 of 2010. The same was decided on 31.05.2017 and the 1] RESPONDENTS challenge has been made to an at In the present case, some land owned by the appellants tate of Village Pehrawar, came to be acquired for the public purpose of carving out of Sector 26, HSVP Rohtak. The Land Acquisition Collector vide @ filed their objections, which were referred to the competent court vide LAC 7 and the ANJAL GUPTA 2025.12.09 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document EFA-12-2025 (O&M) market value aggrieved, appellants No.1 to 11 filed Regular First Ap appellants No.12 to 15 were impleaded as proforma respondents. 4. was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 16.03.2022 and the market value was enhanced to Rs.42,51,000/ other benefits. 5. Execution Petition No.678 of 2022 in LAC Case No.855 of 2010 and RFA No.5513 of 2017. The said Execution Application has been disposed of by the Learned Executing Court while pass dated 30.09.2025 whereby the Execution Petition with respect to appellants No.12 to 15 has been dismissed on the ground that they were not the appellants before this Court in RFA No.5513 of 2017 whereas with respect to appellants No.1 to 11, disposed of with the direction to compensation has been impugned by way of present appeal. 6. gone through the records. 7. Procedure, 1908 respondents No. No.5513 of enhanced 2025 (O&M) market value was enhanced to Rs.2 aggrieved, appellants No.1 to 11 filed Regular First Ap appellants No.12 to 15 were impleaded as proforma respondents. The said Regular First Appeal (RFA No.5513 of 2017) was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 16.03.2022 and the market value was enhanced to Rs.42,51,000/ benefits. Based on the aforesaid, all the appellants preferred Execution Petition No.678 of 2022 in LAC Case No.855 of 2010 and RFA No.5513 of 2017. The said Execution Application has been disposed of by the Learned Executing Court while pass dated 30.09.2025 whereby the Execution Petition with respect to appellants No.12 to 15 has been dismissed on the ground that they were not the appellants before this Court in RFA No.5513 of 2017 whereas with respect to appellants No.1 to 11, disposed of with the direction to respondents compensation amount within one month. It has been impugned by way of present appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. In terms of Order 41 Rule 4 Procedure, 1908, once the appellants No.1 respondents No.3 to 7 in the Regular First Appeal bearing No.5513 of 2017, the decision passed therein wit compensation even applied to their rights [2 enhanced to Rs.21,45,000/- per acre. Still aggrieved, appellants No.1 to 11 filed Regular First Appeal wherein appellants No.12 to 15 were impleaded as proforma respondents. Regular First Appeal (RFA No.5513 of 2017) was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 16.03.2022 and the market value was enhanced to Rs.42,51,000/- per acre alongwith ed on the aforesaid, all the appellants preferred Execution Petition No.678 of 2022 in LAC Case No.855 of 2010 and RFA No.5513 of 2017. The said Execution Application has been disposed of by the Learned Executing Court while passing the order dated 30.09.2025 whereby the Execution Petition with respect to appellants No.12 to 15 has been dismissed on the ground that they were not the appellants before this Court in RFA No.5513 of 2017 whereas with respect to appellants No.1 to 11, the same has been respondents to deposit the enhanced amount within one month. It is the same order which has been impugned by way of present appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have Rule 4 of the Code of Civil the appellants No.12 to 15 were impleaded as 3 to 7 in the Regular First Appeal bearing RFA 2017, the decision passed therein with respect to the compensation even applied to their rights as well and as 2] . Still peal wherein Regular First Appeal (RFA No.5513 of 2017) was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 16.03.2022 and the ith ed on the aforesaid, all the appellants preferred Execution Petition No.678 of 2022 in LAC Case No.855 of 2010 and RFA No.5513 of 2017. The said Execution Application has been ing the order dated 30.09.2025 whereby the Execution Petition with respect to appellants No.12 to 15 has been dismissed on the ground that they were not the appellants before this Court in RFA No.5513 of 2017 the same has been enhanced the same order which I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have of the Code of Civil re impleaded as RFA the and as ANJAL GUPTA 2025.12.09 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document EFA-12-2025 (O&M) such, they regard may be made to the order dated 01.12.2022 passed Court in RFA No.832 of 2022 extracted hereinafter: Bijender Singh who are the sons of Sh. Lal Chand were joint owners of the property which was acquired by the State of Haryana. All the brothers Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with a request to refer the matter to the Court. On being referred, the Reference Court vide LAC Case No.937 of 2010, decided on 30.10.2015, passed a common judgment deciding the joint claim of all the brothers. Sh. Subhash, Sh. Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Bijender Singh filed an appeal while Sh. Dalel Singh (appellant) was impleaded as proforma respondent as he was not available for signing the required documents. The appeal filed by the aforesaid three brothers was allowed. This appeal has been filed by Sh. Dalel Singh claiming the same amount of compensation. In fact, the case of the appellant already stands decided along with his Once a joint reference petition was filed by all the four brothers, which was decided by the Reference Court by a common judgment, then, the appeal, even if filed by only three brothers, shall enure to the benefit of the appellant. There was a joint decree four brothers. It is not the case of the appellant that while filing the appeal by his brothers, the rights of appellant were relinquished or surrendered. of Civil Procedure, 190 entitled to the same amount as payable to the remaining three brothers in terms of judgment passed in No.458 of 2016, titled as “M/s Satkarta Realtors (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others 2025 (O&M) such, they rightly filed the execution application(s). Reference in this regard may be made to the order dated 01.12.2022 passed RFA No.832 of 2022. The relevant part of the said order extracted hereinafter:- “Sh. Dalel Singh, Sh. Subhash, Sh. Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Bijender Singh who are the sons of Sh. Lal Chand were joint owners of the property which was acquired by the State of Haryana. All the brothers noted above filed a joint application to the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with a request to refer the matter to the Court. On being referred, the Reference Court vide LAC Case No.937 of 2010, decided on 30.10.2015, passed a common judgment deciding the joint claim of all the brothers. Sh. Subhash, Sh. Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Bijender Singh filed an appeal while Sh. Dalel Singh (appellant) was impleaded as proforma respondent as he was not available for signing the required ments. The appeal filed by the aforesaid three brothers was allowed. This appeal has been filed by Sh. Dalel Singh claiming the same amount of compensation. In fact, the case of the appellant already stands decided along with his Once a joint reference petition was filed by all the four brothers, which was decided by the Reference Court by a common judgment, then, the appeal, even if filed by only three brothers, shall enure to the benefit of the appellant. There was a joint decree four brothers. It is not the case of the appellant that while filing the appeal by his brothers, the rights of appellant were relinquished or surrendered. In such a situation, in terms of Order XLI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant shall be deemed to be entitled to the same amount as payable to the remaining three brothers in terms of judgment passed in No.458 of 2016, titled as “M/s Satkarta Realtors (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others”. [3 ightly filed the execution application(s). Reference in this regard may be made to the order dated 01.12.2022 passed by this relevant part of the said order Sh. Dalel Singh, Sh. Subhash, Sh. Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Bijender Singh who are the sons of Sh. Lal Chand were joint owners of the property which was acquired by the State of Haryana. All the noted above filed a joint application to the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with a request to refer the matter to the Court. On being referred, the Reference Court vide LAC Case No.937 of 2010, decided on 30.10.2015, passed a common judgment deciding the joint claim of all the brothers. Sh. Subhash, Sh. Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Bijender Singh filed an appeal while Sh. Dalel Singh (appellant) was impleaded as proforma respondent as he was not available for signing the required ments. The appeal filed by the aforesaid three brothers was allowed. This appeal has been filed by Sh. Dalel Singh claiming the same amount of compensation. In fact, the case of the appellant already stands decided along with his remaining three brothers. Once a joint reference petition was filed by all the four brothers, which was decided by the Reference Court by a common judgment, then, the appeal, even if filed by only three brothers, shall enure to the benefit of the appellant. There was a joint decree in favour of four brothers. It is not the case of the appellant that while filing the appeal by his brothers, the rights of appellant were relinquished or In such a situation, in terms of Order XLI Rule 4 of the Code 8, the appellant shall be deemed to be entitled to the same amount as payable to the remaining three brothers in terms of judgment passed in Regular First Appeal No.458 of 2016, titled as “M/s Satkarta Realtors (P) Ltd. Vs. 3] ightly filed the execution application(s). Reference in this by this relevant part of the said order Sh. Dalel Singh, Sh. Subhash, Sh. Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Bijender Singh who are the sons of Sh. Lal Chand were joint owners of the property which was acquired by the State of Haryana. All the noted above filed a joint application to the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with a request to refer the matter to the Court. On being referred, the Reference Court vide LAC Case No.937 of 2010, decided on 30.10.2015, passed a common judgment deciding the joint claim of all the brothers. Sh. Subhash, Sh. Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Bijender Singh filed an appeal while Sh. Dalel Singh (appellant) was impleaded as proforma respondent as he was not available for signing the required ments. The appeal filed by the aforesaid three brothers was allowed. This appeal has been filed by Sh. Dalel Singh claiming the same amount of compensation. In fact, the case of the appellant remaining three brothers. Once a joint reference petition was filed by all the four brothers, which was decided by the Reference Court by a common judgment, then, the appeal, even if filed by only three brothers, shall enure to in favour of four brothers. It is not the case of the appellant that while filing the appeal by his brothers, the rights of appellant were relinquished or In such a situation, in terms of Order XLI Rule 4 of the Code 8, the appellant shall be deemed to be entitled to the same amount as payable to the remaining three Regular First Appeal No.458 of 2016, titled as “M/s Satkarta Realtors (P) Ltd. Vs. ANJAL GUPTA 2025.12.09 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document EFA-12-2025 (O&M) 8. aside to the extent of at the instance of appellants No.12 to 15 and the learned Executing Court is requested to entertain their Execution Applicati proceed further in accordance with law compensation in terms of decision dated 16.03.2022 passed in RFA No.5513 of 2017 favour of appellants No.1 to 11 the Court that the amount stands deposited with the Executing Court on 23.10.2025. 9. The same in favour of appellants No.1 to 11 with immediate effect. The learned Executi whether the payment deposited by the respondent commensurate to the shares carries upto date statutory interest. 10. of. 11. of. 05.12.2025 Anjal 2025 (O&M) In such circumstances, the order dated 30.09.2025 is set aside to the extent of dismissal of the execution at the instance of appellants No.12 to 15 and the learned Executing Court is requested to entertain their Execution Applicati proceed further in accordance with law compensation in terms of decision dated 16.03.2022 passed in RFA No.5513 of 2017. With respect to the release of compensation in favour of appellants No.1 to 11, the learned State that the amount stands deposited with the Executing Court on 23.10.2025. 9. The learned Executing Court is same in favour of appellants No.1 to 11 with immediate effect. The learned Executing Court is also requested to look into the fact whether the payment deposited by the respondent commensurate to the shares/landholdings of the appellants and also carries upto date statutory interest. With all the observations th Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed 05.12.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable [4 In such circumstances, the order dated 30.09.2025 is set the execution application preferred at the instance of appellants No.12 to 15 and the learned Executing Court is requested to entertain their Execution Application and proceed further in accordance with law towards release of enhanced compensation in terms of decision dated 16.03.2022 passed in RFA ith respect to the release of compensation in learned State counsel informed that the amount stands deposited with the Executing Court Executing Court is thus requested to release the same in favour of appellants No.1 to 11 with immediate effect. The ng Court is also requested to look into the fact, as to whether the payment deposited by the respondent-department is /landholdings of the appellants and also With all the observations the present appeal is disposed Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed ( HARKESH MANUJA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No 4] In such circumstances, the order dated 30.09.2025 is set application preferred at the instance of appellants No.12 to 15 and the learned Executing on and towards release of enhanced compensation in terms of decision dated 16.03.2022 passed in RFA ith respect to the release of compensation in counsel informed that the amount stands deposited with the Executing Court requested to release the same in favour of appellants No.1 to 11 with immediate effect. The as to department is /landholdings of the appellants and also isposed Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed ANJAL GUPTA 2025.12.09 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document