295 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DEVKI NANDAN STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Shivansh Malik, HARKESH MANUJA 1. Prayer in the present civil revision petition is for issuance of direction to the learned Executing Court to decide the execution application bearing EXE/ Nandan vs. State of period. 2. Admittedly, vide notifications dated 15.12.2006 and 14.12.2007 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for development of Sector 26, Sector) respectively, Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation @ of Rs. per acre. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner/landowners filed petition u Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which was decided by the Reference Court vide award dated 05.07.2014. 3. Aggrieved thereof No.1537/2016 which was the compensation IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: DEVKI NANDAN Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Shivansh Malik, Advocate for the **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present civil revision petition is for issuance of direction to the learned Executing Court to decide the execution application bearing EXE/654/2022 dated 31.10.2022 vs. State of Haryana and Ors.” Admittedly, certain land owned by the petitioner was vide notifications dated 15.12.2006 and 14.12.2007 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the public purpose namely, development of Sector 26, Rohtak (the residential and institutional Sector) respectively, followed by award dated 03.07.2009 Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation @ of Rs. per acre. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner/landowners filed petition u Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which was decided by the Reference Court vide award dated 05.07.2014. Aggrieved thereof, the land owners filed No.1537/2016 which was allowed vide order the compensation from Rs.20 lakhs per acre to Rs.42.51 lakhs per acre. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2182-2025 Date of Decision: April 08, 2025 ........Petitioner ........Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Advocate for the petitioner. Prayer in the present civil revision petition is for issuance of direction to the learned Executing Court to decide the execution 2022 dated 31.10.2022 titled as “Devki ” within a time bound manner certain land owned by the petitioner was acquired vide notifications dated 15.12.2006 and 14.12.2007 issued under Sections for the public purpose namely, Rohtak (the residential and institutional dated 03.07.2009, whereby, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation @ of Rs.20,00,000/- per acre. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner/landowners filed petition under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which was decided by the Reference Court , the land owners filed Regular First Appeal order dated 16.03.2022, enhancing from Rs.20 lakhs per acre to Rs.42.51 lakhs per acre. 2025 April 08, 2025 Prayer in the present civil revision petition is for issuance of direction to the learned Executing Court to decide the execution Devki anner acquired vide notifications dated 15.12.2006 and 14.12.2007 issued under Sections for the public purpose namely, Rohtak (the residential and institutional , whereby, the - nder Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which was decided by the Reference Court Regular First Appeal 16.03.2022, enhancing MAHIMA 2025.04.11 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-2182-2025 -2- Thereafter, the petitioner filed execution application bearing No. EXE/654/2022 before the learned Addl. District Judge, Rohtak in February 2024 seeking execution of the judgment and decree, however, the said execution proceedings are being repeatedly adjourned and are now pending for 09.04.2025, thereby, delaying the disbursal of enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioner/landowners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being aggrieved of the delay has filed the present revision petition for issuance of direction to the Executing Court concerned to decide the execution petition expeditiously, in a time bound manner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. A perusal of record shows that execution petition (Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioner on 14.11.2024, is still pending and the petitioner is waiting to get their full amount of compensation on the basis of decision dated 16.03.2022 passed by this Court. 7. In Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others (2021) 6 SCC 418, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follow:- “That the executing Court must dispose of execution proceeding within 6 months from the date of filing which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay.” 8. In view of the aforementioned legal position, the Executing Court is requested to dispose of the execution No. EXE/654/2022 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of next 06 months from today, as any further delay may cause serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner-land owner. MAHIMA 2025.04.11 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-2182-2025 -3- 9. It is made clear that nothing stated herein-above shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the execution proceedings. 10. The present petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms without issuance of any notice to the respondents as it may cause further delay in the proceedings. 11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 08.04.2025 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No MAHIMA 2025.04.11 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.