CR No.5615 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 141 SAT NARAYAN SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Ms. Nisha Kanojia, Advocate for Mr. for the petitioner Ms. Komal Sharma, D.A.G., Haryana. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) [1]. By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, prayer has been made for issuance of direction to the learned Executing Court to decide the Execution No. deceased through LRs and others bound period in view of directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others SCC 418”. [2]. Admittedly, certain land owned by the petitioner notification dated 15.12.2006 and 14.12.2007 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the 1894 Act’) respectively, followed by an award dated 03.07.2009 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, whereby petitioner(s) and other persons were granted compensation to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs per acre. Feeling dissatisfied, the land (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5615 Date of Decision: SAT NARAYAN SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Ms. Nisha Kanojia, Advocate for Mr. Shivansh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Komal Sharma, D.A.G., Haryana. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution prayer has been made for issuance of direction to the learned Executing Court to decide the Execution No.73/2025 dated deceased through LRs and others vs. State of Haryana and in view of directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others Admittedly, certain land owned by the petitioner notification dated 15.12.2006 and 14.12.2007 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the 1894 Act’) respectively, followed by an award dated 03.07.2009 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, whereby and other persons were granted compensation to the tune of Rs.20 Feeling dissatisfied, the landowners filed petition under Section 18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 5615 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.08.2025 SAT NARAYAN SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS ......Petitioner(s) ....Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Ms. Komal Sharma, D.A.G., Haryana. By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution prayer has been made for issuance of direction to the learned Executing dated 11.04.2025 titled as ‘Sat Narayan vs. State of Haryana and others’ within a time in view of directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others’ reported as “(2021) 6 Admittedly, certain land owned by the petitioner(s) was acquired vide notification dated 15.12.2006 and 14.12.2007 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the 1894 Act’) respectively, followed by an award dated 03.07.2009 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, whereby and other persons were granted compensation to the tune of Rs.20 owners filed petition under Section 18 1 By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution prayer has been made for issuance of direction to the learned Executing Sat Narayan within a time in view of directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (2021) 6 was acquired vide notification dated 15.12.2006 and 14.12.2007 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the 1894 Act’) respectively, followed by an the and other persons were granted compensation to the tune of Rs.20 owners filed petition under Section 18 MOHMED ATIK 2025.08.22 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR No.5615 of 2025 of the 1894 Act, which was decided by the Reference Court vide award dated 05.07.2014. [3]. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner Appeal before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 16.03.2022 enhancing the compensation to the tune of Rs.42.51 lakh per acre. Later the petitioner(s) filed Execution Pet Addl. District Judge, Rohtak and the same is payment of compensation to the petitioner amount of compensation has not been disbursed to the owners. [4]. Learned counsel for the petitioner being aggrieved of the non present revision petition for issuance of direction to the Exec to decide the execution application expeditiously, in a time bound manner. [5]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. [6]. A perusal of record shows that execution application filed by the petitioners on 11.04.2025 amount of compensation on the basis of order dated 16.03.2022 passed by this Court. [7]. In as (2021) 6 SCC proceedings within 6 months from the date of filing which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay.” (O&M) of the 1894 Act, which was decided by the Reference Court vide award dated Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner( Appeal before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 16.03.2022 enhancing the compensation to the tune of Rs.42.51 lakh per acre. Later the filed Execution Petition No.73/202 Addl. District Judge, Rohtak and the same is payment of compensation to the petitioner(s), however, till date, the enhanced amount of compensation has not been disbursed to the Learned counsel for the petitioner being aggrieved of the non-disbursal of amount of compensation have filed the present revision petition for issuance of direction to the Exec to decide the execution application expeditiously, in a time bound manner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper A perusal of record shows that execution application filed by the 11.04.2025 is still pending and the petitioner amount of compensation on the basis of order dated 16.03.2022 passed by this In Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others (2021) 6 SCC 418 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “That the executing Court must dispose of execution proceedings within 6 months from the date of filing which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay.” of the 1894 Act, which was decided by the Reference Court vide award dated (s)/landowners filed Regular First Appeal before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 16.03.2022 enhancing the compensation to the tune of Rs.42.51 lakh per acre. Later the 2025 on 11.04.2025 before the learned Addl. District Judge, Rohtak and the same is pending since then for making , however, till date, the enhanced amount of compensation has not been disbursed to the petitioner(s) and other land Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the petitioner disbursal of amount of compensation have filed the present revision petition for issuance of direction to the Executing Court concerned to decide the execution application expeditiously, in a time bound manner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper A perusal of record shows that execution application filed by the is still pending and the petitioners are waiting to get their amount of compensation on the basis of order dated 16.03.2022 passed by this Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others reported the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “That the executing Court must dispose of execution proceedings within 6 months from the date of filing which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay.” 2 of the 1894 Act, which was decided by the Reference Court vide award dated owners filed Regular First Appeal before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 16.03.2022 enhancing the compensation to the tune of Rs.42.51 lakh per acre. Later the before the learned for making , however, till date, the enhanced and other land submits that the petitioner(s) disbursal of amount of compensation have filed the uting Court concerned I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper A perusal of record shows that execution application filed by the are waiting to get their amount of compensation on the basis of order dated 16.03.2022 passed by this reported “That the executing Court must dispose of execution proceedings within 6 months from the date of filing which may be MOHMED ATIK 2025.08.22 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR No.5615 of 2025 [8]. In view of above, Executing Court expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of next 04 months from today, as any further delay is going to cause seriou petitioner(s)/land [9]. It is made clear that nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the execution proceedings. [10]. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any shall also August 21, 2025 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable (O&M) In view of above, the Court of Addl. District Judge, Rohtak Executing Court is requested to dispose of the Executing Petition No. expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of next 04 months from today, as any further delay is going to cause seriou )/landowners. It is made clear that nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the execution proceedings. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No the Court of Addl. District Judge, Rohtak-cum is requested to dispose of the Executing Petition No.73/2025 expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of next 04 months from today, as any further delay is going to cause serious prejudice to the rights of the It is made clear that nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the execution proceedings. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 3 cum- 5 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of next 04 months from today, s prejudice to the rights of the It is made clear that nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending MOHMED ATIK 2025.08.22 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment