Dismissed¶30

Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Bikram Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Apr 2026CR/215/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: CR-215-2020 (O&M); Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Bikram Singh; executing Court objections; cannot travel beyond decree; Section 18 Land Acquisition Act, 1894; enhancement of compensation; parity for co-sharers; CWP No. 5787 of 1987 (23.05.2006); Rs. 377 per marla; Rs. 20/- per square yards; Rs. 600/- per marla; Ramphal v. HSIIDC, Civil Appeal Nos. 391-398 of 2026 (13.01.2026); interest restricted to five years backwards; expedition of disbursement; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; respondents-landowners held entitled to the market value finally determined for the related acquisition (Rs. 600/- per marla), with the Executing Court requested to expedite release of compensation in accordance with the directions in Ramphal's case (supra); pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Ludhiana Improvement Trust Vs Bikram Singh — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-decree holder, a co-sharer of applicants whose land was similarly acquired, was entitled to enhanced compensation on parity (Rs. 600/- per marla) notwithstanding the Trust's objections that the executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree. +2 more

¶20

Court's answer

The respondents-landowners, being co-sharers of the applicants who preferred references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in which enhancement was ordered, are entitled to the award of market value finally determined with respect to the related acquisition.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The revision petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision dated 13.01.2026 in Ramphal, which upheld the claims of co-sharers to similar compensation while restricting the award of interest.

¶30

Key takeaways

The learned Executing Court is requested to expedite the release of the compensation amount in favour of the respondents-landowners while keeping in view the specific and categoric directions issued in Ramphal's case (supra).ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Harkesh Manuja, J., oral) dismisses Ludhiana Improvement Trust's revision petition (CR-215-2020 (O&M)) against the order dated 22.10.2019 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana-cum-Executing Court, which had dismissed the Trust's objections and held the respondent-decree holder entitled to enhanced compensation with statutory benefits and interest. Land (9 Kanal 17-5/6 Marla) acquired under award dated 04.08.1981; Section 18 reference award dated 24.09.1986 fixed Rs. 377 per marla; co-sharers' market value stood enhanced to Rs. 20/- per square yard (Rs. 600/- per marla) in CWP No. 5787 of 1987 (decided 23.05.2006). Relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision dated 13.01.2026 in Ramphal v. Haryana SIDC Ltd. (paras 11-14 reproduced), which upheld co-sharers' entitlement to similar compensation while restricting interest to five years reckoned backwards with consequential benefits and timelines for computation and disbursement, the Court holds the respondents-landowners entitled to the finally determined market value for the related acquisition and requests the Executing Court to expedite release of compensation per Ramphal's directions. Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

¶1

CR-215-2020 (O&M)

¶2

150

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR-215-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.04.2026

¶5

LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST ….Petitioner

¶6

Versus BIKRAM SINGH AND ANOTHER …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶7

Present: Mr. K avita Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. G .S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for r e spondent No.1.

¶9

-.-

¶10

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

By w ay of present revision petition, challenge has been laid t o an order dated 22.10.2019 passed by C i vil Judge (Senior Division ) , Ludhiana-cum-E x ecuting Court, whereby obj e ctions filed by the trust wer e dismissed and the respondent-decree hol d er was held entitled to a n enhanced amou n t along with statutory benefits and interest.

¶12

[2] Briefly stating, land measuring 9 K anal 17-5/6 Marla belongin g to decree hold e r was acquired under an a ward dated 04.08.1981. O n reference under Section 18 of the Land A c quisition Act, the Referenc e Court vide awar d dated 24.09.1986 enhance d the compensation to Rs. 37 7 per marla.

¶13

[3] Sub s equently, the decree holder filed an execution petition i n the year 2015 claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 600 per marla o n the basis of ju d gments rendered in case s of other landowners. Th e

¶14

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.04.23 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

¶16

CR-215-2020 (O&M)

¶17

petitioner-Trust contested the claim by filing objections inter alia on the grounds that the executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree and that excess payment has already been made.

¶18

[4] The learned executing Court, however, dismissed the objections and granted enhanced compensation along with interest vide order dated 22.10.2019. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner-trust filed the present revision petition.

¶19

[5] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book of the case.

¶20

[6] In the present case, there is no dispute that some of the cosharers of the respondent-decree holder in relation to the acquired land preferred civil writ petition before this Court for enhancement of compensation, wherein vide decision dated 23.05.2006 passed in CWP No. 5787 of 1987, the market value of the acquired land was enhanced to Rs. 20/- per square yards i.e. Rs. 600/- per marla.

¶21

[7] In view of the latest exposition of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide decision dated 13.01.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No(s).391 - 398 of 2026 (@SLP (C) No(S).4532-4539 of 2023), titled “Ramphal &Ors. Versus Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited &Ors”, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to uphold the claims made by the co-sharers with regard to entitlement of similar amount of compensation as granted in favour of their co-owners in the acquired land, however, restricted the award of interest. Relevant paras 11 to 14 from the aforesaid decision dated 13.01.2026 are extracted hereunder:-

¶22

“11. In fact, we have been informed at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, which is not seriously

¶23

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.04.23 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

¶25

CR-215-2020 (O&M)

¶26

disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, the fact that the land which was acquired, has been utilized for the purposes of formation of industrial sites and allotted to the needy persons in accordance with the Rules then prevalent. In other words, the acquiring body is also benefited to certain extent, which is an instrumentality of the State. Thus, the scales have to be balanced in this scenario.

¶27

12. We are of the considered view that apart from the compensation, the appellants would be entitled to the interest for a period of five years to be reckoned from today backwards and we make it explicitly clear that the appellants are not entitled for any interest for any other period. We would also hasten to add that the appellants would be entitled to all other consequential benefits which flow from award of compensation and the respondent(s) authorities shall compute the compensation as has been determined by the award passed under Section 18 of the Act and/or modified by the High Court or this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

¶28

13. The said determination shall be made by the authorities expeditiously and at any rate within an outer limit of three months from the date of this order and the amounts so determined shall be disbursed within an outer limit of three months for such determination with interest as specified therein.

¶29

14. In the event of time line which has been fixed by this Court is not adhered to by the respondent(s) authorities, they shall be liable to pay interest @ nine per cent (9%) on the amounts so determined from the date of such determination.”

¶30

[8] In view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.

¶31

[9] The learned Executing Court is requested to expedite the release of compensation amount in favour of respondents-landowners while keeping in view the specific and categoric directions issued in

¶32

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.04.23 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

¶34

CR-215-2020 (O&M)

¶35

Ramphal’s case (supra), especially when it has not been disputed by the petitioner that the respondents-landowners happened to be the co-sharers of the applicants who preferred references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and enhancement was ordered in their favour. The respondents-landowners shall also be entitled to the award of market value which was finally determined with respect to the related acquisition.

¶36

[10] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶37

21.04.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sanjay JUDGE

¶38

Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether Reportable? Yes/No

¶39

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.04.23 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Bikram Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Bikram Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Davinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Anup Ashma Vs Raj Kumar Sharma and Antoher

Ramesh Chand Vs Prabha and Others

Phool Wati and Ors. Vs M/S Sahar Land and Housingh Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Rattan Singh Thr Lrs Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sukhdev Singh Deceased through Lrs Vs Sukhwinder Singh and Others