IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (247) CR-1645-2021 Date of Decision:-01.09.2025 BHAG SINGH AND OTHERS ……Petitioners Versus PALA RAM AND OTHERS ……Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL **** Present: Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Abhishek Shukla, Advocate, for Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 9. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sharma, DAG, Haryana. **** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral) A perusal of the record shows that the petitioners–Bhag Singh and others have filed the present revision petition assailing the impugned order dated 25.03.2021 (Annexure P-11), passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, in a reference under Section 3-H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, whereby the application filed by the petitioners seeking their impleadment as parties was dismissed. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had earlier declined the said prayer of the petitioners in the instant revision petition vide order dated 31.07.2023. 2. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.08.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme -1- SHUBHAM 2025.09.02 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/order Court of India allowed the application for impleadment moved by the appellants and directed the Reference Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Kaithal, to implead them as party respondents. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: 8. Consequently, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, especially with respect to the alleged entitlement of the appellants or anyone else, we allow this appeal; set aside the orders of the Reference Court as well as that of the High Court dated 31.07.2023. As a necessary corollary, the application for impleadment moved by the appellants is allowed and the Reference Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Kaithal is directed to implead them as party respondent(s). 9. The Reference Court is further directed to formulate a specific issue regarding apportionment of compensation based upon the respective title claims. The Reference Court, if so required, may enable the parties to lead their respective evidence and resolve the issues of ownership and consequential apportionment of compensation in accordance with law. 10. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The parties are directed to appear before the High Court on 29.08.2025. 4. In compliance with the aforesaid directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned counsel for the parties appeared and jointly submitted that the present revision petition may kindly be disposed of, as the parties will now appear before the learned Reference Court-cum- -2- SHUBHAM 2025.09.02 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/order Additional District Judge, Kaithal, for compliance of order dated 04.08.2025. 5. In view of the above, and in light of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the learned Reference Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Kaithal, the present revision petition stands disposed of, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. 6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE 01.09.2025 Shubham Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No -3- SHUBHAM 2025.09.02 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/order