Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2026) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20854
Decided on: 13.01.2026
Alongwith
(SLP(C) No(s). 7800-7803 of 2023),
(SLP(C) No(s). 6166-6167 of 2023),
(SLP(C) No(s). 8205-8208 of 2023),
(SLP(C) No(s). 5377 of 2023),
(SLP(C) No(s). 8204 of 2023),
(SLP(C) No(s). 12025-12032 of 2023),
(SLP(C) No(s). 7804 of 2023),
(SLP(C) No(s). 2077 of 2024),
(SLP(C) No(s). 23357 of 2023),
(SLP(C) No(s). 16788 of 2023),
(SLP(C) No(s). 14204 of 2023),
(SLP(C) No(s). 15432 of 2023),
(SLP(C) No(s). 20263 of 2023),
(SLP(C) No(s). 20264 of 2023),
(SLP(C) No(s). 28112-28113 of 2023),
(SLP(C) No(s). 3266 of 2024),
(SLP(C) No(s). 6118-6119 of 2024),
(SLP(C) No(s). 11180 of 2023),
(SLP(C) No. 14206 of 2023),
(SLP(C) No(s). 9723 of 2023),
(SLP(C) No(s). 8914 of 2024)
And
(SLP (C) Diary No(s). 63224 of 2025)
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Dinesh Verma, Adv., Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, AOR, Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv., Ms. Prachi Sohi, Adv., Ms. Pooja Devi, Adv., Mr. Kapil Kumar, Adv., Mr. Varun Punia, AOR, Mr. Karan Dewan, Adv., Ms. Aanchal Jain, AOR, Mr. Rajiv Sethi, Adv., Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR, Mr. Parmanand Yadav, Adv., Mr. Siddhant Yadav, Adv., Mr. Jitesh Malik, Adv., Mr. Jatin Hooda, Adv., Mr. Shamindra Kadiyan, Adv., Mr. Abhaya Nath Das, Adv., Ms. Swagoti Batchas, Adv., Mr. Soumya Kundu, Adv., Mr. Gourav Dixit, Adv., Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR, Mr. Surinder Singh, Adv., Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR, Mr. Mohit Bidhuri, Adv., Mr. Kanav Bhardwaj, Adv., Mr. Sanchar Anand, Adv., Mr. Devendra Singh, AOR, Mr. Aman Kumar Thakur, Adv., Mr. Rajat Rathee, Adv., Mr. Pratimesh, Adv., Mr. Aman Bhardwaj, Adv., Mr. Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Adv., Mr. Satish Kumar Gupta, Adv., Mr. Narender Kumar Verma, AOR, Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ananta Prasad Mishra, AOR, Mr. Jasbir Singh, Adv., Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Adv., Mr. Ankit Swarup, AOR, Mr. Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv., Mr. Neelmani Pant, Adv., Mr. Yash Singhal, Adv., Mr. Satish Kumar Gupta, Adv., Mr. Vikrant S Verma, Adv., Mr. Vikarant S Verma, Adv., Mr. Aryan Rachh, Adv., Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR, Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, AOR, Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv., Ms. Anzu K. Varkey, Adv., Ms. Shivika Nehra, Adv., Mr. Parveen Kumar, Adv., Mr. Mohammed Shahrukh, Adv., Mr. Puran Mal Saini, Adv., Mr. Dalganjan Singh, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Mittal, AOR, Mr. Abhijeet Varshney, Adv., Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv., Mrs. Shilpa G Mittal, Adv.
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G., Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR, Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv., Ms. Ishika Gupta, Adv., Mr. Sarthak Arya, Adv., Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Mayur Goyal, Adv., Ms. Seema Sindhu, Adv., Mr. Abhay Nair, Adv., Mr. Harsh Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Vijay Chandra Jha, AOR, Mr. Kapil Hooda, Adv., Mr. Kaushal Chandra Jha, Adv., Mr. Tushant, Adv., Mr. Akhilendra Nath, Adv.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 28A, 54 -- Acquisition of land – Award – Some co-owner challenged the same – Rights of other co-sharer, who did not challenge – Held, being ignorant of prosecuting the cause, appellant/ land-loosers did not challenge the award passed either by filing an application u/s 18 of the Act or no application was filed u/s 28A of the Act after the appeal came to be disposed of in favour of one of the co-owners enhancing the compensation they cannot be denied compensation for the lands lost by them to which they are legitimately entitled to and same cannot be denied on hyper technical grounds -- Appellants held entitled for the interest for a period of five years to be reckoned from today backwards and they would be entitled to all other consequential benefits which flow from award of compensation and the respondent(s) authorities shall compute the compensation as has been determined by the award passed u/s 18 of the Act and/or modified by the High Court or Supreme Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
(Para 8, 12)
ORDER
1. Heard.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Leave granted.
4. The sum and substance of the case of the appellants (land losers) in laying a challenge to the order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana (impugned order), whereunder it came to be held that the co-sharers who did not file objections to the award passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and also had failed to move the Court under Section 28A of the Act within the limitation, is erroneous.
5. It came to be held under the impugned order that cosharers/ appellants were not entitled to maintain an execution petition and seek for a direction to the judgment debtor (for whose benefit the land was acquired) to divert payment of compensation on the ground that one of co-sharer had approached the reference court and an award has been passed and necessarily the award so passed would enure to the benefit of all other co-sharers.
6. The execution petitions filed by the co-sharers, who are not parties to the reference proceedings, pursued their grievance and the execution petition was allowed in part and interest having been refused, the aggrieved persons approached the High Court. So also the State i.e. the acquiring body, challenging the order of the executing court whereunder it came to be held that the co-sharers were entitled to maintain the execution petitions, was under challenge.
7. All the civil revision petitions were taken up together and by impugned order it was held that the question formulated has to be answered in favour of the acquiring body/State of Haryana viz. that execution petition filed by the co-sharers were not maintainable. In fact, the awards passed in the Lok Adalat, was also held to be without jurisdiction and the settlement, if any arrived at, was held to be due to misconception/misrepresentation of law and not binding on the State and its instrumentalities. Hence, the present appeals by the land losers.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after bestowing our anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar, we are of the considered view that instead of keeping these matters pending, they can be disposed of on a short issue, namely, on the ground that there being no dispute to the fact that acquisition of petitioners land had ended in an award being passed in favour of one of the co-sharers of the land and other cosharers, who being ignorant of prosecuting the cause, did not challenge the award passed either by filing an application under Section 18 of the Act or no application was filed under Section 28A of the Act after the appeal came to be disposed of in favour of one of the co-owners enhancing the compensation they cannot be denied compensation for the lands lost by them to which they are legitimately entitled to and same cannot be denied on hyper technical grounds.
9. The fact remains that the co-sharers who have received the compensation are none other than the blood relatives of the petitioners. There will be naturally a heartburn and on account of non-prosecuting their cause, the land losers cannot be deprived of their legitimate compensation to which they are entitled to. That apart, we notice that the appeal, by some of the co-sharers seeking for enhancement, came to be disposed of by the jurisdictional High Court in the year 2011 and the award had been passed somewhere in the year 2003. The preliminary notification which came to be issued in the year 2002, till the disposal of the appeal in 2011/2015, these appellants were waiting in the wings to receive compensation and did not raise their little finger or pursue their grievance before any authority. It is this inaction on their part and not pursuing their legitimate right in appropriate forum, which would persuade us to hold that these appellants would not be entitled for the relief of interest for the whole of this period. Thus, the main question would be, whether any interest should be awarded? if so, to what extent or what period?
10. The determination of compensation having come to an end wayback in the year 2011 itself, at the first instance, and the appellants herein instead of filing an application under Section 28 A of the Act, had knocked the doors of the trial court by filing execution petition in the year 2015 on the previous award has already been passed in respect of their lands which would indicate they woke up from their slumber or deep sleep and start agitating their rights thereafter and from said year till date, they have been waiting to receive the compensation in respect of the lands which have been acquired. The awards passed would also indicate that it has been passed in respect of the land belonging to the petitioners. However, fact remain it did not indicate actual share of each of the claimants and these appellants did not receive enhancement by filing Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act.
11. In fact, we have been informed at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, which is not seriously disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, the fact that the land which was acquired, has been utilized for the purposes of formation of industrial sites and allotted to the needy persons in accordance with the Rules then prevalent. In other words, the acquiring body is also benefited to certain extent, which is an instrumentality of the State. Thus, the scales have to be balanced in this scenario.
12. We are of the considered view that apart from the compensation, the appellants would be entitled to the interest for a period of five years to be reckoned from today backwards and we make it explicitly clear that the appellants are not entitled for any interest for any other period. We would also hasten to add that the appellants would be entitled to all other consequential benefits which flow from award of compensation and the respondent(s) authorities shall compute the compensation as has been determined by the award passed under Section 18 of the Act and/or modified by the High Court or this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
13. The said determination shall be made by the authorities expeditiously and at any rate within an outer limit of three months from the date of this order and the amounts so determined shall be disbursed within an outer limit of three months for such determination with interest as specified therein.
14. In the event of time line which has been fixed by this Court is not adhered to by the respondent(s) authorities, they shall be liable to pay interest @ nine per cent (9%) on the amounts so determined from the date of such determination.
15. With the above observations, the appeals stand disposed of.
Order accordingly.
********