IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

226 CR-8121-2017(O&M)

Date of decision: 12.03.2026 Inderbir Singh & Others ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Union of India & Another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the landowners/decree holders seeking setting aside of the order dated 20.05.2017 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Executing Court whereby it has been held that the petitioners are not entitled to enhanced compensation as they have not availed of the remedy of filing appeal.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the land of the petitioners and other similarly situated landowners had been acquired under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter called “the Act”). It is submitted that land of five villages namely Dholewal, Daba, Gill No.2, Sherpur Kalan and Sherpur Khurd were acquired. Village of the petitioners is village Daba. It is submitted that at that time, compensation was made to the landowners by getting Form K signed from them and Form L was not signed by the petitioners meaning thereby that respondents were duty bound to appoint an Arbitrator for determining the amount of compensation payable to the landowners. As the respondents did not appoint an Arbitrator as required under the Act, therefore, most of the landowners including the petitioners had to approach this Court for getting directions for appointment of Arbitrator. Subsequently, Arbitrators were appointed. Arbitrators assessed compensation payable to the landowners @ Rs.210/- per square yard; however, made a deduction of 1/3^rd from the market value. This deduction was made due to smaller plots owned by the claimants and the acquired land is big area consisting of 400 acres.

3. Ld. counsel submits that most of the landowners filed first appeals before this Court which were decided by common order dated 05.07.2006 (Annexure P2). Through this order, although this Court did not enhance the compensation, however, the deduction of 1/3^rd amount as ordered by the Arbitrator in all the Awards was set aside; and it was held that all claimants/landowners of all those Awards were entitled to original market rate of Rs.210/- per square yard as assessed by the Arbitrator, without any deduction.

4. It is submitted that thereafter, some landowners as well as the Union of India/respondent No.1 filed SLPs against Annexure P2 which were all consolidated into SLP (C) No. 17667 of 2007 was converted into Civil Appeal No 1052 of 2014 and vide order dated 29.1.2014 (Annexure P-3), the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29.01.2014 upheld the order of this Hon'ble Court with regard to setting aside 1/3гd deduction; and further it was held that the claimants are also entitled to get solatium 15% of the compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award.

5. Learned counsel submits that accordingly, in view of the above orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioners are also entitled to the said enhanced compensation as also grant of solatium as also interest. Therefore, the petitioners along with many other landowners had filed Execution Petitions before the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. It is submitted that some of the said Execution Petitions were satisfied; whereas vide the impugned order the Execution Petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

6. Learned counsel contends that as per Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC the order passed by the appellate court is applicable and binding on both the parties whether the appeal has been filed by the appellant or by the respondent. The appellate court has ample powers to modify the order of the lower court either upward or downwards as it may deem fit and the said order is executable by the appellant as well as by the respondents in the same terms.

Si