241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH BAL RAM THR HIS LRS AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. HARKESH MANUJA By way of present revision petition the Constitution of India 29.11.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat-cum-Executing Court, whereby the execution petition preferred at the instance of p making the payment of compensation of the acquired land in the same terms as awarded [2] Notice of motion. [3] Mr. Abhinav Kalia, DAG, Haryana the respondent(s) accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3/HSVP. [4] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper [5] A perusal of the petition preferred at the instance of petitioners dismissed merely on the ground that they did not choose to prefer any objection under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), yet fil award/determination made in favour of their co land. [6] The aforesaid legal issue already stands decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide decision dated 13.01.2026 passed in Appeal No(s).391 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: BAL RAM THR HIS LRS AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for the **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present revision petition the Constitution of India, challenge has been laid to an order dated passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Executing Court, whereby the execution petition preferred at the instance of petitioners, seeking directions to the respondents for making the payment of compensation of the acquired land in the same as awarded in the case of other co-sharer Notice of motion. Mr. Abhinav Kalia, DAG, Haryana the respondent(s)-State of Haryana whereas, Mr. H.S. Gill, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3/HSVP. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the execution petition preferred at the instance of petitioners dismissed merely on the ground that they did not choose to prefer any objection under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short Act”), yet filed an execution application based on an award/determination made in favour of their co The aforesaid legal issue already stands decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide decision dated 13.01.2026 passed in ).391 - 398 of 2026 (@slp (C) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2714-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 25, 2026 ......Petitioners .....Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Advocate for the petitioners. By way of present revision petition filed under Article 227 of , challenge has been laid to an order dated passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Executing Court, whereby the execution petition preferred , seeking directions to the respondents for making the payment of compensation of the acquired land in the same sharers, was dismissed. Mr. Abhinav Kalia, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of whereas, Mr. H.S. Gill, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3/HSVP. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone rder shows that the execution petition preferred at the instance of petitioners-landowners was dismissed merely on the ground that they did not choose to prefer any objection under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ed an execution application based on an award/determination made in favour of their co-sharers in the acquired The aforesaid legal issue already stands decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide decision dated 13.01.2026 passed in Civil (C) No(S). 4532-4539 of 2023), (O&M) March 25, 2026 filed under Article 227 of , challenge has been laid to an order dated passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Executing Court, whereby the execution petition preferred , seeking directions to the respondents for making the payment of compensation of the acquired land in the same notice on behalf of whereas, Mr. H.S. Gill, Advocate I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone rder shows that the execution landowners was dismissed merely on the ground that they did not choose to prefer any objection under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ed an execution application based on an sharers in the acquired The aforesaid legal issue already stands decided by the Civil 4539 of 2023), TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.03.25 19:23 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-2714-2026 (O&M) -2- titled “Ramphal & Ors. Versus Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Ors”, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme 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:- “11. In fact, we have been informed at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, which is not seriously disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, the fact that the land which was acquired, has been utilized for the purposes of formation of industrial sites and allotted to the needy persons in accordance with the Rules then prevalent. In other words, the acquiring body is also benefited to certain extent, which is an instrumentality of the State. Thus, the scales have to be balanced in this scenario. 12. We are of the considered view that apart from the compensation, the appellants would be entitled to the interest for a period of five years to be reckoned from today backwards and we make it explicitly clear that the appellants are not entitled for any interest for any other period. We would also hasten to add that the appellants would be entitled to all other consequential benefits which flow from award of compensation and the respondent(s) authorities shall compute the compensation as has been determined by the award passed under Section 18 of the Act and/or modified by the High Court or this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 13. The said determination shall be made by the authorities expeditiously and at any rate within an outer limit of three months from the date of this order and the amounts so determined shall be disbursed within an outer limit of three months for such determination with interest as specified therein. 14. In the event of time line which has been fixed by this Court is not adhered to by the respondent(s) authorities, they shall be liable to pay interest @ nine per cent (9%) on the amounts so determined from the date of such determination.” [7] In view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme 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 petitioner(s) are found to TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.03.25 19:23 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-2714-2026 (O&M) -3- be co-sharers in the acquired land parcels along with those who preferred reference under Section 18 or 28-A of the Act, the necessary amount as finally determined along with statutory benefits and interest thereupon be released in their favour within the time period stipulated in Ramphal’s case (supra). [8] 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 Supreme Court in Ramphal’s case (supra). [9] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 25.03.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.03.25 19:23 I agree to specified portions of this document