-1- CR-6783-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** 106 CR-6783-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.08.2026 UNION TERRITORY THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR …Petitioner Versus NIRMAIL SINGH …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Ms. Priyanka Kansal, Additional Standing Counsel For petitioner-U.T. Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate with Ms. Surbhi Rana, Advocate for respondent *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 03.02.2025 whereby Ld. Additional District Judge, Chandigarh has disposed of Execution Application with a direction to petitioner to pay awarded amount. 2. The petitioner acquired respondent’s land vide award dated 05.03.2003 and 29.03.2004. The petitioner claims that while disbursing compensation qua award dated 05.03.2003, excess payment to the tune of ₹37,23,863/- was made. It adjusted excess payment against liability arising out of second award dated 29.03.2004. The adjustment was made on SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.08.27 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- CR-6783-2025 (O&M) 05.05.2013. The respondent filed Execution Application on 31.01.2020 seeking release of payment which was adjusted on account of excess payment qua first award. The Executing Court rejecting contention of the petitioner has ordered to pay compensation qua second award. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in reply filed before the Executing Court, it was categorically pointed out that there was excess payment while disbursing compensation qua first award. The excess payment was adjusted in 2013 while making payment qua second award. The respondent remained silent from 2013 to 2020 and all of a sudden filed Execution Application seeking payment which was adjusted against first award. The landowner was well aware of this fact still filed Execution Application. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that respondent was never supplied calculation with respect to first or second award. He was never issued recovery notice with respect to alleged excess payment qua first award. In these circumstances, there is no infirmity in the impugned award. 5. Heard the arguments and perused the record. 6. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as: - “8. The judgment debtors themselves have admitted that an excess payment of Rs.37,23,863/- was made to the decree holder in some other award No.557 and the same has been now adjusted in the decretal amount of the present case which pertains to Award No.569. However, the judgment debtors have not been able to show what steps were taken by them for SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.08.27 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -3- CR-6783-2025 (O&M) recovery of the said excess payment from the decree holder. Under these facts and circumstances, the present execution being an action plan case is disposed with the following directions:- (i) The judgment debtors at the first instance are directed to pay the decretal amount of Rs.37,23,863/- along with interest as per the award passed by ADJ, Chandigarh on 12.05.2012. The said amount be paid within three months. (ii) In case the said amount is not paid, the decree holder shall be at liberty to file fresh execution as per law. (iii) Since, as per the judgment debtors' record being old is not traceable, therefore, if the record is traced and it is ascertained that any letter/notice was issued to the decree holder for recovery of the excess amount of Rs.37,23,863/- then, the judgment debtors shall be at liberty to proceed against the decree holder as per law for recovery of the excess amount of Rs.37,23,863/- alleged to have been paid in award no.557.” 7. The petitioner made adjustment of alleged excess payment in 2013 and respondent filed Execution Application in January’ 2020. This shows that respondent was aware of excess payment and he had no objection on adjustment. He is trying to take advantage of non-maintenance of proper record by Government Officials. It is a case of public money and Court cannot turn a blind eye. This Court is of the prima facie opinion that as per documents on record, the respondent has received excess payment qua first award which was adjusted against second award. Had there not been second award, the petitioner was supposed to follow procedure of recovery. As there were two awards, the Officer concerned as per his wisdom made adjustment of excess payment against liability arising out of second award. Action of SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.08.27 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -4- CR-6783-2025 (O&M) authority was impliedly conceded by respondent because he was aware that he had received excess payment with respect to first award. 8. In the backdrop, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The respondent may file fresh Execution Application pointing out that he has not actually received excess payment qua first award. If he proves that he has not actually received excess payment qua first award, he would be entitled to compensation qua second award along with interest as provided under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Act. If the Execution Application is filed, the petitioner shall produce complete record disclosing excess payment. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that compensation is awarded through proper banking channel which involves Treasury as well. 9. Allowed in above terms. 10. Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 26.08.2026 SDK Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.08.27 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document