Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Swarup Alias Ram Roop Now Deceased ... vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 5 December, 2025
EFA-14-2025
2025 (O&M)
[1
1]
207-3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
EFA-14--2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 05.12.2025
RAM SAWARUP @ RAM ROOP (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH
HIS LRS AND OTHERS ........ APPELLANTS
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present:- Mr.Shivansh Malik,, Advocate for the appellants.
Ms. Komal Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. H.S.Gill, Advocate for HSVP.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of present appeal challenge h has as been made to an order dated 20.09.2025 2 passed ssed by learned Executing Court at Rohtak.
2. In the present case, some land owned by the appellants landowners situated within the revenue estate of Village Pehrawar, District Rohtak, Rohtak came to be acquired for the public purpose of carving out of Sector 26, HSVP Rohtak. The Land Acquisition Collector vvide ide its Award dated 03.07.2009 assessed the market value @ Rs.20,00,000/ 20,00,000/- per acre.
3. Being aggrieved thereof, the appellants appellants-landowners landowners filed their objections, which were referred to the competent court vide LAC Case No.1130 1130 of 2010. The same was decide decided on 31.05.2017 and ANJAL GUPTA 2025.12.09 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document EFA-14-2025 2025 (O&M) [2 2] the market value was enhanced to Rs.2 Rs.21,45,000/- per acre.. Still aggrieved, appellants No.1 to 10 1 filed Regular First Appeal wherein appellants No.11 No.1 to 22 were impleaded as proforma respondents.
4. The said Regular First Appeal (RFA No.5363 of 2017) was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 16.03.2022 and the market value was enhanced to Rs.42,51,000/ Rs.42,51,000/- per acre alongwith other benefits.
5. Based on the aforesaid, all the appellants preferred Execution Petition No.677 No.67 of 2019 in LAC AC Case No. No.1130 of 2010 and RFA No.5363 No.5 of 2017. The said Execution Application has been disposed of by the Learned Executing Court while passing the o order rder dated 20.09.2025 0.09.2025 whereby the Execution Petition with respect to appellants No.11 No.1 to 22 has been dismissed on the ground that they were not the appellants before this Court in RFA No.55 No.5563 3 of 2017 whereas with respect to appellants No.1 to 10 10,, the same has been disposed of with the direction to respondents to deposit the enhanced compensation amount within one month. It is the same order which has been impugned by way of present appeal.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.
7. In terms of Order 41 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 1908 once the appellants No. No.11 to 22 were re impleaded as respondents No.3 No. to 7,, 9, 10, 12 to 14, 19 & 20 in the Regular First Appeal bearing RFA No.5563 of 2017, the decision passed therein ANJAL GUPTA 2025.12.09 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document EFA-14-2025 2025 (O&M) [3 3] with respect to the enhanced compensation even applied to their rights as well and as such, they rightly filed the execution application(s). Reference in this regard may be made to the order dated 01.12.2022 passed by this Court in RFA No.832 of 2022.. The relevant part of the said order extracted hereinafter:
hereinafter:-
"Sh. Dalel Singh, Sh. Subhash, Sh. Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Bijender Singh who are the sons of Sh. Lal Chand were joint owners of the property which was acquired by the State of Haryana. All the brothers noted above filed a joint application to the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with a request to refer the matter to the Court. On being referred, the Reference Court vide LAC Case No.937 of 2010, decided on 30.10.2015, passed a common judgment deciding the joint claim of all the brothers. Sh. Subhash, Sh.
Sh. Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Bijender Singh filed an appeal while Sh. Dalel Singh (appellant) was impleaded as proforma respondent as he was not available for signing the required documents. The appeal filed by the aforesaid three brothers was allowed. This appeal appeal has been filed by Sh. Dalel Singh claiming the same amount of compensation. In fact, the case of the appellant already stands decided along with his remaining three brothers. Once a joint reference petition was filed by all the four brothers, which was decided by the Reference Court by a common judgment, then, the appeal, even if filed by only three brothers, shall enure to the benefit of the appellant. There was a joint decree in favour of four brothers. It is not the case of the appellant that while fifiling ling the appeal by his brothers, the rights of appellant were relinquished or surrendered.
In such a situation, in terms of Order XLI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant shall be deemed to be entitled to the same amount as payable to the remaining three brothers in terms of judgment passed in Regular First Appeal ANJAL GUPTA 2025.12.09 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document EFA-14-2025 2025 (O&M) [4 4] No.458 of of 2016, titled as "M/s Satkarta Realtors (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others".
others
8. In such circumstances, the order dated 2 20.09.2025 0.09.2025 is set aside to the extent of dismissal of the execution application preferred at the instance of appellants No.11 No.1 to 22 and the learned Executing Court is requested to entertain their Execution Application and proceed further in accordance with law towards release of enhanced compensation in terms of decision dated 16.03.2022 passed in RFA No.5363 of 2017.
2017 With respect to the release of compensation in favour of appellants No.1 to 10, 10 the learned State counsel informed the Court that the amount stands deposited with the Executing Court on 23.10.2025.
9. The learned Executing Court is thus requested to release the same in favour of appellants No.1 to 1 10 with immediate effect. The learned Executing Court is also requested to look into the fact fact, as to whether the payment deposited by the respondent respondent-department department is commensurate to the shares/landholdings shares/landholdings of the appel appellants lants and also carries upto date statutory interest.
10. With all the observations the present appeal is d disposed isposed of.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
05.12.2025 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
Anjal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No ANJAL GUPTA 2025.12.09 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document