119

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

1.

Civil Revision No. 1380 of 2021 (O& M)

Roda Singh

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union of India and Others

... Respondent(s)

2.

Civil Revision No. 1383 of 2021 (O& M)

Roda Singh

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union of India and Others

... Respondent(s)

3.

Civil Revision No. 1388 of 2021 (O& M)

Roda Singh

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union of India and Others

... Respondent(s)

4.

Civil Revision No. 1389 of 2021 (O& M)

Nihal Kaur through her LR and Another

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union of India and Others

... Respondent(s)

AND

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

2021.07.28 13:33

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Civil Revision No. 1380 of 2021 (O& M) And

2

Four Other Connected Cases

5.

Civil Revision No. 1391 of 2021 (O& M)

Nihal Kaur through her LR

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union of India and Others

... Respondent(s)

DATE OF DECISION: 27.07.2021

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:

Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate

for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Sunil Sharma, Advocate,

for respondent No.1-Union of India.

Ms. Kanica Sachdeva, Assistant Advocate General,

Punjab, for respondent No.2 and 3.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1.

By this order, Civil Revision No. 1380,1383, 1388, 1389 and

1391 of 2021 shall stand disposed of.

2.

On going through the impugned order passed by the learned

Executing Court, this Bench is constrained to observe that the Court below

has preferred technicalities over the cause of substantive justice. The

petitioner(s) is/are the land owners. Their land was compulsorily acquired

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The amount of compensation has

been finally determined by the Court. Their previous execution application

for recovery of the amount was consigned to record being partly satisfied.

The petitioners want the payment of remaining amount. They filed an

application for restoration of the execution petition. A further request was

made to treat the application for restoration as a fresh execution petition. The

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

2021.07.28 13:33

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Civil Revision No. 1380 of 2021 (O& M) And

3

Four Other Connected Cases

attention of the Court was also drawn to the order, passed by the High Court

in Charan Dass v. Union of India and Others (ESA No. 5 of 2018, decided

on 02.05.2018), a connected case. However, the learned Executing Court

dismissed the application with the observation that the petitioner(s) can file a

fresh execution petition.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

On the request of the Court, Mr. Sunil Sharma, Advocate,

accepts notice for Union of India-respondent No.1 and Ms.Kanica Sachdeva,

Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent

No.2 and 3. At this stage, service of notice upon respondent No.4 is

dispensed with.

5.

Learned senior counsel representing the petitioner(s) submits

that certain identical orders, consigning the previous execution petitions to

record being partly satisfied, already stand recalled. He submits that more

than 50% of the execution petitions have already been restored through

appropriate orders (Annexures P4 & P5).

6.

It is well settled that the Courts have been assigned the

responsibility to do substantive justice between the parties. The petitioners

already stand deprived of their land. The amount of compensation has also

been finally determined. In such circumstances, the Courts are required to

ensure the payment of amount to the persons who had lost their land due to

compulsory acquisition. The Courts are required to focus on doing complete

justice between the parties, rather than giving preference to technicalities.

7.

In such spirit, the present petitions are allowed and the various

orders, under challenge, are set aside. The learned Executing Court is

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

2021.07.28 13:33

I