HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. v. DHARAMBIR AND OTHERS
CR/8141/2025 · 2026-05-12
Deepak Gupta
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6902 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6902 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-8141-2025 and other connected cases Date of decision: 12.05.2026 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporaon Limited (HSIIDC) ...Peoner Versus Dharambir and others ...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Ms. Surbhi Rana, Advocate for Mr. Pritam S. Saini, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. Bhim Singh, Advocate for the landowners. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) It is a bunch of 5 Civil Revisions, all filed under Arcle 227 of the Constuon of India for quashing the common order dated 01.08.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned ADJ, Gurugram, whereby various execuon peons filed by peoner herein were dismissed. 2. Following is the list of peons, being disposed of by this common order:- CR-8141-2025 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporaon Limited (HSIIDC) vs. Dharambir and others CR-8149-2025 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporaon Limited (HSIIDC) vs. Malkhan Singh and others CR-8154-2025 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporaon Limited (HSIIDC) vs. Krishan and another CR-8170-2025 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporaon Limited (HSIIDC) vs. Ram Niwas and others CR-8171-2025 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporaon Limited (HSIIDC) vs. Vijay Pal and others YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.13 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
[2]
3. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the peoner submits that the land of several landowners situated in Village Kassan was acquired by the State of Haryana. Dissasfied with the award of the Land Acquision Collector, the landowners sought references under Secon 18 of the Land Acquision Act, 1894. The Reference Court, vide its award dated 03.10.2012, re-assessed the market value of the land at ₹50,70,359/- per acre. 4. Subsequently, in appeals preferred by the State under Secon 54 of the Act, this Court reduced the market value to ₹43,61,400/- per acre. Aggrieved by such reducon, the landowners approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Vide judgment dated 08.04.2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed the market value at ₹47,10,500/-. 5. It is next submiEed that, in the interregnum, several landowners iniated execuon proceedings before the Execung Court seeking release of compensaon at the rate determined by the Reference Court. As no interim protecon had been granted in favour of the State or its beneficiary department, the peoner was compelled to deposit the compensaon calculated at the higher rate fixed by the Reference Court. 6. AGer the Supreme Court finally determined the market value, the peoner iniated separate execuon peons, seeking a direcon for refund of the excess amount already withdrawn by the landowners along with statutory interest.
The Execung Court, however, dismissed all such execuons vide order dated 01.08.2025, holding that an execuon peon was not the appropriate remedy. It reasoned that restuon under Secon 144 CPC was the only correct procedural mechanism once the original decree (here, the Reference Court award) had been varied or reversed by a superior court. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.13 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
[3]
7. Once a decree is modified or reversed in appeal, Secon 144 CPC statutorily mandates restoraon of the pares to the posion they would have occupied but for the erroneous decree. The principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit—the act of the Court shall prejudice no one— requires refund of excess compensaon. Courts have consistently held that where restuon is sought due to reversal or variaon of an award or decree, an execuon peon is not maintainable, because what is to be executed is not the original decree but the altered liability arising by virtue of the appellate judgment. Therefore, the Execung Court’s finding that the proper remedy lies under Secon 144 CPC, is legally sound. 8.
Learned counsel for the peoner submits that the Execung Court ought to have either treated or converted the execuon peons into applicaons under Secon 144 CPC, in view of the seEled principle that substance prevails over form and procedural technicalies must not defeat substanve rights. In the alternave, he prays that the peoner be permiEed to withdraw the execuon peons with liberty to file appropriate applicaons under Secon 144 CPC before the competent Court.
9. Courts have inherent powers under Secon 151 CPC to treat a mis-labelled or defecve proceeding as one maintainable in law, parcularly when the relief claimed remains otherwise permissible. However, conversion is discreonary and depends on the nature of defects, the stage of proceedings, and whether prejudice may be caused to the opposite party. Seeking withdrawal with liberty therefore remains a proper and unobjeconable course.
10. Therefore, the alternave request made by learned counsel for the peoner is accepted. Accordingly, the cluster of 05 peons, YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.13 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
[4] menoned in para 2 of this order, is dismissed as withdrawn. The peoner is granted liberty to file appropriate applicaons under Secon 144 CPC before the Court concerned for restuon of the excess compensaon paid to the landowners.
11. It is clarified that, while deciding the applicaons under Secon 144 CPC, the concerned Court shall adjudicate the maEer uninfluenced by any observaons made in the impugned order of the Execung Court, and shall dispose of the maEer strictly in accordance with law, keeping in view the principles governing restuon and refund of excess compensaon post-appeal.
12. As no adverse order is being passed against the respondents and the peons are dismissed as withdrawn at the request of the peoner, issuance of noce of moon is not required.
Disposed of accordingly. A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected files. 12.05.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.13 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document