Sumer Chand Deceased Thorugh Lrs. Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sumer Chand Deceased Thorugh Lrs. Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted to the petitioners; all revision petitions dismissed and pending misc. application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the fresh execution application filed in February 2019, without any fresh assessment/enhancement and without assailing or disclosing the earlier decision dated 13.01.2011 recording full satisfaction, could be entertained by the Executing Court. +2 more

Court's answer

The previous execution application had been disposed of vide decision dated 13.01.2011 recording full satisfaction; the fresh execution application filed in February 2019 after around 08 years was lodged without any fresh assessment/enhancement and without assailing or disclosing the previous order dated 13.01.2011.

Ratio / Principle

The reliance placed by the petitioners/landowners upon the order dated 04.09.2018 passed by this Court in CR No.2873 of 2011 (Naresh Chand Jain Vs. State of Haryana and ors.) is misplaced, as the same nowhere confers any right or entitlement in favour of the petitioners/landowners.

Key takeaways

There being no illegality or perversity in the order dated 19.05.2023 passed by the learned Executing Court, no ground for interference is made out and the Court declines to exercise its revisional jurisdiction.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Harkesh Manuja, J., oral), deciding a bunch of five civil revisions led by CR-176-2024 (O&M) (Sumer Chand (deceased) through LRs. v. State of Haryana and ors.; others: CR-205-2024, CR-221-2024, CR-232-2024, CR-650-2024), dismissed the landowners' challenge to the Executing Court's order dated 19.05.2023 rejecting their second execution application. Land notified for acquisition on 03.11.1970; award dated 05.10.1972 @ Rs.3/- per sq. yard; enhanced to Rs.25/- per sq. yard (decision dated 03.10.1985) and re-assessed to Rs.27/- per sq. yard by the High Court (11.01.1988). The first execution had been decided on 13.01.2011 as fully satisfied; the fresh execution filed in February 2019, without any fresh assessment/enhancement and without assailing or disclosing the 13.01.2011 order, was held unsustainable. Reliance on the order dated 04.09.2018 in CR No.2873 of 2011 (Naresh Chand Jain v. State of Haryana and ors.) was held misplaced as conferring no right or entitlement on these landowners. Finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, revisional jurisdiction was not exercised; all revision petitions and pending misc. applications were dismissed/disposed of.

1

186 (4 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-176-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.05.2026

Sumer Chand deceased through LRs. ......Petitioners Vs

State of Haryana and ors. ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr. S.P. Khatri, Advocate for the petitioners.

M s . Komal Sharma, DAG, Hary a na. Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advoca t e and M s .Surbhi Rana, Advocate for H SIIDC.

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

Vi d e this common order, a bunch of 05 Civil Revisions, det a ils of which are g i ven in the footnote of this ju d gment, are being decided a s all have arisen o u t of common decision invol v ing common facts and ques t ion of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are bei n g taken from CR-176-2024 . 2. By way of present revision peti t ion(s), challenge has been laid to an order dated 19.05.2023, passed b y the learned Executing Court, whereby ex e cution petition preferred at the instance of the petitioners/lan d owners was dismissed. 3. In the present case, the land owned by the petitioners w as notified for a c quisition on 03.11.1970 a n d an award was passed on 05.10.1972 a s sessing compensation @ Rs.3/- per sq. yard. U p on

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.26 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2

reference, it came to be enhanced @ Rs.25/- per sq. yard vide decision dated 03.10.1985 followed by further re-assessment to the tune of Rs.27/per sq. yard by this Court vide its decision dated 11.01.1988.

Based thereupon, the petitioners/ landowners sought execution which ultimately came to be decided vide decision dated 13.01.2011, by recording that the same stands fully satisfied.

After a gap of almost 08 years, another execution application came to be filed at the instance of petitioners/ landowners in the month of February 2019. The said execution application was opposed at the instance of respondents. The learned Executing Court vide its order dated 19.05.2023 dismissed the execution application preferred at the instance of petitioners/ landowners.

Being aggrieved, the present revision petition(s) came to be filed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book.

In the present case(s), admittedly the previous execution application preferred at the instance of petitioners/ landowners came to be disposed of vide its decision dated 13.01.2011. However, without there being any fresh assessment/ enhancement been made in favour of the petitioners/ landowners, fresh execution application came to be filed at their instance after around 08 years in February 2019 and that too without assailing/ disclosing the previous order dated 13.01.2011.

Furthermore, the reliance placed by the petitioners/ landowners upon the order dated 04.09.2018 passed by this Court in CR No.2873 of 2011 tilted as Naresh Chand Jain Vs. State of Haryana and ors ., is also

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.26 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3

misplaced as the same nowhere confers any right or entitlement in favour

of the petitioners/ landowners.

In such circumstances, there being no illegality or perversity in the order dated 19.05.2023 passed by the learned Executing Court, no ground for interference is made out on the part of this Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction.

Consequently, all revision petitions stand dismissed.

Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed

of.

25.05.2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) sanjay JUDGE

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

Sr. No.	Case No.
1.	CR-205-2024 (O&M)
2.	CR-221-2024 (O&M)
3.	CR-232-2024 (O&M)
4.	CR-650-2024 (O&M)

25.05.2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) sanjay JUDGE

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.26 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document