CR No.2324 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 176 JARNAIL SINGH AND ANR. Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH Present: Mr. for the petitioner HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in the present civil revision petition is for issuance of to the learned Executing Court to decide the execution application No.81 of 2022 Punjab” within a time bound manner period. 2. Admittedly, land measuring 592 acres, 7 kanals and 16 marla, in the revenue estates of 10 villages, namely, Mandvi, Chandu, Makror Sahib, Nawangaun, Jaswantpur @ Banarsi and Khanori Kalan, was acquired for the public embankment and widening of Ghaggar river, followed 12.04.2008, whereby, the Land Acquisition Collector Rs.6,00,000/- per acre including solatium qua Rs.10,00,000/- per acre qua the land of 3. Feeling dissatisfied, the land owners of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Reference Court, dismissed vide common order dated 15.12.2010. (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2324 Date of Decision: JARNAIL SINGH AND ANR. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH Mr. Karan Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present civil revision petition is for issuance of to the learned Executing Court to decide the execution application dated 09.03.2022, titled as “Jarnail Singh and others ” within a time bound manner period. Admittedly, land measuring 592 acres, 7 kanals and 16 marla, in the revenue estates of 10 villages, namely, Shahpur Mandvi, Chandu, Makror Sahib, Nawangaun, Jaswantpur @ Banarsi and Khanori Kalan, was acquired for the public embankment and widening of Ghaggar river, followed 08, whereby, the Land Acquisition Collector per acre including solatium qua the land of 09 villages at flat rate and per acre qua the land of village Khanouri. Feeling dissatisfied, the land owners of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Reference Court, dismissed vide common order dated 15.12.2010. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2324 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.04.2025 ......Petitioners ....Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Prayer in the present civil revision petition is for issuance of direction to the learned Executing Court to decide the execution application bearing EXE Jarnail Singh and others Vs. State of Admittedly, land measuring 592 acres, 7 kanals and 16 marla, situated Shahpur Nau Abad Theri, Andana, Mandvi, Chandu, Makror Sahib, Nawangaun, Jaswantpur @ Hotipur, Baupur, Banarsi and Khanori Kalan, was acquired for the public purpose namely, for embankment and widening of Ghaggar river, followed by an award dated 08, whereby, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation @ of the land of 09 villages at flat rate and village Khanouri. Feeling dissatisfied, the land owners filed petitions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Reference Court, which were dismissed vide common order dated 15.12.2010. 1 direction bearing EXE Vs. State of situated Theri, Andana, Hotipur, Baupur, purpose namely, for by an award dated awarded compensation @ of the land of 09 villages at flat rate and Section 18 which were MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.22 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR No.2324 of 2025 Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 15.12.2010, the land owners including the petitioner appeals, which were partly allowed on 27.01.2016 while enhancing the compensation from Rs. regards village Khanouri, compensation was enhanced from Rs.21,00,000/- which was disposed of vide order dated 27.02.2017, holders, including the petitioners were awarded and interest. Aggrieved against the landowners challenged the order by which was disposed of vide order ADJ, Sangrur to re Accordingly, vide order compensation at the amounts already respondents have petitioners/land owner Reference Court, 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner aggrieved of the delay has filed the present revision petition for direction to the Executing Court concerned to decide the expeditiously, in a time bound manner. 5. I have heard the lear 6. A perusal of record shows that by the petitioners on 09.03.2022 (O&M) Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 15.12.2010, the land owners including the petitioners approached this Court by way of number of appeals, which were partly allowed on 27.01.2016 while enhancing the compensation from Rs.6 lakhs to Rs.15,95,600/ regards village Khanouri, compensation was enhanced from per acre. Thereafter, the petitioner filed which was disposed of vide order dated 27.02.2017, holders, including the petitioners were awarded Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioner and other landowners challenged the order by filing CR No.4676 which was disposed of vide order dated 21.07.2017 with direction to the learned ADJ, Sangrur to re-evaluate the objections raised by the judgment debtor Accordingly, vide order dated 20.12.2017, learned ADJ, Sangrur, reassessed the compensation at the rate of Rs.39,50,082/- per acre, subject to the deduction of amounts already paid to the decree holders on 27.02 respondents have not released the full compensation. Thereafter, the /land owner filed execution application No.EXE/ Reference Court, Sangrur. Learned counsel for the petitioners aggrieved of the delay has filed the present revision petition for direction to the Executing Court concerned to decide the expeditiously, in a time bound manner. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. A perusal of record shows that execution petition (Annexure P by the petitioners on 09.03.2022, is still pending and the petitioner Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 15.12.2010, the land proached this Court by way of number of appeals, which were partly allowed on 27.01.2016 while enhancing the 6 lakhs to Rs.15,95,600/- per acre qua 09 villages and as regards village Khanouri, compensation was enhanced from Rs.10,00,000/- per acre. Thereafter, the petitioner filed execution application, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.02.2017, vide which, the decree holders, including the petitioners were awarded compensation excluding solatium aforesaid order, the petitioner and other filing CR No.4676-2017 before this Court, dated 21.07.2017 with direction to the learned ections raised by the judgment debtor-State. dated 20.12.2017, learned ADJ, Sangrur, reassessed the per acre, subject to the deduction of paid to the decree holders on 27.02.2017, but till date the not released the full compensation. Thereafter, the filed execution application No.EXE/81/2022 before the s submits that the petitioners 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 ned counsel for the petitioners. execution petition (Annexure P-3) filed , is still pending and the petitioners are waiting to 2 Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 15.12.2010, the land proached this Court by way of number of appeals, which were partly allowed on 27.01.2016 while enhancing the and as - to execution application, vide which, the decree compensation excluding solatium aforesaid order, the petitioner and other 2017 before this Court, dated 21.07.2017 with direction to the learned State. dated 20.12.2017, learned ADJ, Sangrur, reassessed the per acre, subject to the deduction of .2017, but till date the not released the full compensation. Thereafter, the before the being issuance of execution petition iled waiting to MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.22 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR No.2324 of 2025 get their full amount of compensation on the basis of decision passed by this Court as well as in view of judgment dated 27.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur. 7. In Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others (2021) 6 SCC 418, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as f “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 requested to dispose of the execution No.EXE/ possible, preferably within a period of next 06 months from delay may cause serious prejudice to the rights of the 9. It is an expression of opinion on the merits of the execution 10. The present petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms without of any notice to the respondents as it may c 11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. April 21, 2025 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable (O&M) full amount of compensation on the basis of decision passed by this Court as well as in view of judgment dated 27.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur. Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others (2021) 6 , 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.” In view of the aforementioned legal position, the Executing requested to dispose of the execution No.EXE/ possible, preferably within a period of next 06 months from delay may cause serious prejudice to the rights of the It is made clear that nothing stated herein an expression of opinion on the merits of the execution The present petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms without of any notice to the respondents as it may cause further delay in the Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No full amount of compensation on the basis of decision dated 27.01.2016 passed by this Court as well as in view of judgment dated 27.12.2017 passed by the Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others (2021) 6 ollow:- That the executing Court must dispose of execution proceeding within 6 months from the date of filing which may be extended only by recording In view of the aforementioned legal position, the Executing Court is requested to dispose of the execution No.EXE/81/2022 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 petitioners-land owners. made clear that nothing stated herein-above shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the execution proceedings. The present petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms without issuance ause further delay in the proceedings. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 3 dated 27.01.2016 passed by this Court as well as in view of judgment dated 27.12.2017 passed by the Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others (2021) 6 That the executing Court must dispose of execution proceeding within 6 months from the date of filing which may be extended only by recording Court is expeditiously as today, as any further construed as issuance proceedings. MOHMED ATIK 2025.04.22 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment