266 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER GAJJAN SINGH AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, for the HARKESH MANUJA CM-5622-CII Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions Annexure P-6 is taken on record. MAIN CASE By way of present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been 19.12.2024 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Bathinda Court whereby, the petitioners have been directed to pay interest in terms of remaining unpaid amount of compensation of The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner once the entire amount of compensation in terms of the award as payable to the petitioner; amounting to Rs17 with the reference court, no liability could have been fastened upon the petitioners to pay interest on the said order is liable to be set aside. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-5622-CII-2025 and CM Date of Decision: UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Versus GAJJAN SINGH AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the applicants-petitioners. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) CII-2025 and CM-5623-CII- Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions 6 is taken on record. By way of present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been 19.12.2024 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Bathinda whereby, the petitioners have been directed to pay interest in terms of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 on the remaining unpaid amount of compensation of The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner once the entire amount of compensation in terms of the award as payable to the petitioner; amounting to Rs17 with the reference court, no liability could have been fastened upon the to pay interest on the said amount and thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH and CM-5623-CII-2025 in/and CR-704-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 26, 2025 ......Applicants-Petitioners ........Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Advocate -2025 Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions and By way of present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been laid to an order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Bathinda-cum-Executing whereby, the petitioners have been directed to pay statutory 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 on the remaining unpaid amount of compensation of Rs.07,12,450.00/- The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that once the entire amount of compensation in terms of the award as payable to the petitioner; amounting to Rs17,12,821.72 stood deposited with the reference court, no liability could have been fastened upon the amount and thus, the impugned 2025 in/and (O&M) March 26, 2025 and By way of present revision petition filed under Article 227 of to an order dated Executing statutory 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 on the is that once the entire amount of compensation in terms of the award as deposited with the reference court, no liability could have been fastened upon the amount and thus, the impugned TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.04.02 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-5622-CII-2025 and CM-5623-CII-2025 in/and CR-704- 2025 -2- I have heard, learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the paper book. A perusal of the record shows that in terms of acquisition proceedings and a sum of Rs17,12,821.72 was deposited by the petitioners before the reference court on 02/04/1987, however, a part thereof; amounting to Rs.10,06,370.73 was released in favour of respondents-land owners on 13/05/1987, whereas, on the basis of letter dated 17/04/1987, written by the Defence Estate Officer, Patiala Circle, the remaining amount could not be released to the land owners and the same was paid to them only on 23/02/1989, and as such they are claiming interest on the remaining sum of Rs.07,12,450.00/- from 02/04/2021, till 23/02/1989. Once the remaining sum of Rs.07,12,450.00/- could not be released to the respondent-land owners on account of a communication dated 17/04/1987 made by the then Defence Estate Officer, Patiala Circle (P-6), the respondent cannot be deprived of the benefit of statutory interest payable on it under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. In view of the aforesaid, finding no illegality or perversity with the decision rendered by Addl. District Judge, Bathinda-cum- Executing Court, no interference is called for and the present petition is thus, dismissed Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 26.03.2025 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.04.02 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document