172 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH NIMBO (SINCE AND ORS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Gaurav Dudeja, HARKESH MANUJA [1]. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to an order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar petition preferred at the instance of the petitioners, se the respondents for making the payment of compensation for the acquired land in the same terms as the award/judgment rendered in the matter of other co [2] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper [3] A perusal of the order shows that the execution petition preferred at the instance of petitioners on the ground that not party to the referen IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: NIMBO (SINCE DECEASED) WIDOW OF RANDHIR THR HIS LRS Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Gaurav Dudeja, Advocate for **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to an order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar-cum-Executing Court, whereby the execution petition preferred at the instance of the petitioners, se the respondents for making the payment of compensation for the acquired land in the same terms as the award/judgment rendered in the matter of other co-sharers, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. A perusal of the order shows that the execution petition preferred at the instance of petitioners-landowners was dismissed merely on the ground that the same was not maintainable as the appellants were not party to the reference petition. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7230-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 06, 2026 ED) WIDOW OF RANDHIR THR HIS LRS ........Petitioners ......Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for Advocate for respondent No.3. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to an order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Executing Court, whereby the execution petition preferred at the instance of the petitioners, seeking directions to the respondents for making the payment of compensation for the acquired land in the same terms as the award/judgment rendered in the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone A perusal of the order shows that the execution petition landowners was dismissed merely the same was not maintainable as the appellants were (O&M) March 06, 2026 By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to an order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Executing Court, whereby the execution eking directions to the respondents for making the payment of compensation for the acquired land in the same terms as the award/judgment rendered in the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone A perusal of the order shows that the execution petition landowners was dismissed merely the same was not maintainable as the appellants were TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.03.12 18:10 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-7230-2025 (O&M) -2- [4] The aforesaid legal issue already stands decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide decision dated 13.01.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No(s).391 - 398 of 2026 (@slp (C) No(S).4532-4539 of 2023), titled “Ramphal & Ors. Versus Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Ors”, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to uphold the claims made by the co-sharers with regard to entitlement of similar amount of compensation as granted in favour of their co-owners in the acquired land, however, restricted the award of interest. Relevant paras 11 to 14 from the aforesaid decision dated 13.01.2026 are extracted hereunder:- TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.03.12 18:10 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-7230-2025 (O&M) -3- [5] In view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Executing Court concerned for fresh adjudication and in case the petitioners are found to be co-sharers in the acquired land parcels alongwith those who preferred reference under Section 18 or 28-A of the Act, the necessary amount as determined finally alongwith statutory benefits and interest thereupon be released in their favour within the time period stipulated in Ramphal’s case (supra). [6] Needless to say that the determination of compensation and release thereof in favour of the petitioners be made in terms of decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramphal’s case (supra). [7] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 06.03.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.03.12 18:10 I agree to specified portions of this document