IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 13.02.2026 Mohan Singh and others .......... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Petitioner No. 1-Mohan Singh in-person and is appearing as counsel qua remaining petitioner Nos. 2 to 4.

Ms. Komal Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No. 1.

Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Nischal Chetanya Manchanda, Advocate for respondent No. 2-Industries Department, Haryana ****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

CM-886-CII-2024 Application for exemption from filing the certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-10, P-12 & P-12A, moved on behalf of the applicant(s)-

petitioner(s), is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

MAIN CASE By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to an order dated 30.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala-cum-Executing Court, whereby the execution proceedings (i.e. EXE No. 1063 of 2016, titled “Ranjit Singh etc. Versus State of Harayna etc.”)

preferred at the instance of petitioners-landowners have been dismissed.

[2] Petitioner No. 1-Shri Mohan Singh, who is appearing in person, has raised the following two submissions:-

(i) In the present case, the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) was passed on 28.07.1999; although the possession of the land was taken from the petitioner(s)-landowner(s) on 24.02.2010, however, the payment was given to them only on 18.05.2010; thus, there was delay of almost three months, for which the official respondents were liable to pay interest in terms of Section 34 of the Act.

(ii) With respect to the delay in disbursal of compensation amount in terms of the award passed by the learned Reference Court, it has been submitted that though the Form- D was prepared on 31.12.2017, however, the payment was released to the petitioners only on 28.02.2018; again with a delay of almost two months and thus, the petitioners- landowners were entitled for statutory interest thereupon in terms of Section 28 of the Act.

[3] On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel as well as the learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, representing the official respondent(s) vehemently oppose(s) the prayer made in the petition, while submitting that the order passed by the learned Executing Court was based on proper appreciation of material available on record and thus, the impugned order calls for no interference.

[4] After hearing petitioner No. 1 as well as the learned counsel(s) representing the official respondent(s) and having gone through the paper- book, I find substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the petitioners. [5] Once, the award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 28.07.1999 and the possession of the acquired land was taken from the petitioners on 24.02.2010 and the payment was released on 18.05.2010, respondent No. 2 was under statutory obligation to pay interest in terms of Section 34 of the Act on the award amount from the date of taking over of possession i.e. 24.02.2010 till the date of payment i.e. upto 18.05.2010.

[6] Furthermore, even as regards the disbursal of amount in terms of award passed by the learned Reference Court, once the Form-D was prepared on 31.12.2017 with respect to the enhanced compensation and the same was transmitted to the accounts of the petitioners through RTGS on 28.02.2018, there being a delay of around two months, respondent No. 2 was under a legal obligation to pay statutory interest to the petitioners in terms of Section 28 of the Act.

[7] It appears that the aforesaid factual aspects somehow escaped the consideration of the learned Executing Court. As such, the order dated 30.09.2023 passed by the learned Executing Court is set aside. The learned Executing Court is requested to examine the issue again in light of the aforesaid observations after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the sides. T