IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 125-a CR-32 of 2026 and other connected cases Date of decision: 13.01.2026 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corpora/on Limited (HSIIDC) . . . . Pe//oner Vs. Virender and another . . . . Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: - Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Ms. Kanchan Sindhu and Mr. Deepak Saini, Advocates for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) It is a bunch of 03 Civil Revisions, all filed under Arcle 227 of the Constuon of India for quashing the common order dated 19.07.2025 (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 - 1. CR-32-2026 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporaon Limited (HSIIDC) Vs. Virender Singh and another 2. C R-39-2026 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporaon Limited (HSIIDC) Vs. Prem Ra:an Gupta and another 3. CR-40-2025 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporaon Limited (HSIIDC) Vs. Ram Phal and others 3. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the peoner submits that the land of several landowners situated in Village Patli Hazipur was acquired by the State of Haryana vide Noficaon dated 11.01.2005 under Secon 4 of the Land Acquision Act for development of KMP Expressway situated in different villages, including village Patli SARITA RANI 2026.01.13 17:45 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR-32-2026 and connected cases 2026:PHHC: 002565 Hazipur. The Land Acquision Collector vide award No.19 dated 10.05.2006 awarded compensaon @
12,50,000/- per acre. Dissasfied with the said award, the landowners sought references under Secon 18 of the Land Acquision Act, 1894. The Reference Court, vide its award dated 22.10.2019, re-assessed the market value of the land at ₹43,17,841/- per acre. 4. Subsequently, in appeals preferred by the both the pares, this Court enhanced the market value to ₹62,11,700/- per acre. Aggrieved by the order of this Court, both the pares approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the SLP remanded the case back to the Reference Court. ThereaFer, the Reference Court dismissed the reference peon holding that landowners are not entled to any enchancement of compensaon more than the award given to them by learned Land Acquision Collector. 5. It is next submi:ed 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. On remand back by Hon’ble Supreme Court and dismissal of reference peons by the Reference Court, 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 19.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), 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. 7. Once a decree is modified or reversed in appeal, Secon 144 CPC statutorily mandates restoraon of the pares to the posion they SARITA RANI 2026.01.13 17:45 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR-32-2026 and connected cases 2026:PHHC: 002565 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 se:led principle that substance prevails over form and procedural technicalies must not defeat substanve rights. In the alternave, he prays that the peoner be permi:ed 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 03 peons, as menoned above, 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 ma:er uninfluenced by any observaons made in the impugned order of the SARITA RANI 2026.01.13 17:45 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR-32-2026 and connected cases 2026:PHHC: 002565 Execung Court, and shall dispose of the ma:er 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. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 13.01.2026 JUDGE
 Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No SARITA RANI 2026.01.13 17:45 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order