121

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

Civil Revision No. 2066 of 2021

Date of Decision: 22.09.2021

Ram Sarup (Since Deceased) through his LRs

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union of India and Others

... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:

Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate

for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Sunil Kumar 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.

Notice of motion.

2.

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

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

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

respondent No. 2 and 3.

3.

The learned counsel representing the parties are ad idem that

this revision petition can be disposed of in terms of the order passed in

Roda Singh v. Union of India (Civil Revision No. 1380 of 2021) and other

connected cases, decided on 27.07.2021, which reads as under:-

“1.

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

1389 and 1391 of 2021 shall stand disposed of.

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

2021.09.23 12:51

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Civil Revision No. 2066 of 2021

2

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

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

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

2021.09.23 12:51

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Civil Revision No. 2066 of 2021

3

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 requested to ensure that the land owners,

who stand deprived of the land, are paid the remaining amount

positively, within a period of three months. The Court will be

at l