Disposed¶18

Union of India v. Ved Parkash Aggrwal

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jul 2026CR/4941/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Union of India and another v. Ved Parkash Aggarwal and another; High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; CR-4941-2026 (O&M); Article 227 Constitution of India; Land Acquisition Act 1894 Sections 4, 6 and 18; execution proceedings; warrant of attachment; Additional District Judge Hisar; Execution Application EXE/1483/2018; compensation calculation dispute; ₹3,43,803; ₹2,77,143; Jagmohan Bansal; decision 03.07.2026; calculations remitted to Executing Court; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

No impugned order was set aside; the Court declined to arbitrate the rival computations and directed the Executing Court to consider the calculations submitted by both sides and pass an appropriate order; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶18

Union of India Vs Ved Parkash Aggrwal — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders dated 02.01.2026, 28.01.2026 and 31.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar — directing payment of ₹3,43,803/- and issuing warrant of attachment — should be set aside as sought by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

At this stage the Court does not find it appropriate to dwell into the calculations made by both sides, there being only a minor difference between the amount claimed by the decree holder and the amount accepted by the petitioners-judgment debtors.

¶18

Key takeaways

The Executing Court is to consider the calculations submitted by both sides and pass an appropriate order; the matter was ordered accordingly and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision (CR-4941-2026 (O&M)) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the Union of India and another seeking setting aside of three orders dated 02.01.2026, 28.01.2026 and 31.01.2026 of the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar (Execution Application No. EXE/1483/2018) directing payment of ₹3,43,803/- and issuing warrant of attachment, arising out of acquisition-compensation proceedings (notifications dated 18.06.1984 and 25.06.1984 under Sections 4 and 6, Land Acquisition Act 1894; LAC award dated 22.01.1986; Section 18 references; enhancement award dated 24.04.1989; common order dated 19.04.1996 at a uniform per-acre rate; intra-Court appeals disposed on 07.07.2025). Observing only a minor difference between the decree holder's claim of ₹3,43,803/- and the petitioners' asserted liability of ₹2,77,143/-, the Court declined to dwell into the rival calculations and directed the Executing Court to consider the calculations submitted by both sides and pass an appropriate order; pending applications stood disposed of. Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal; decided orally on 03.07.2026.

¶1

CR No.4941-2026 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C R -4941-2026 (O&M) D a te of decision : 03.07.2026

¶4

Union of I n dia and another

¶5

…….Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ved Parka s h Aggarwal and another

¶8

...….Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Dharm Chand Mittal, Se n ior Panel Counsel, for petitioners-UOI.

¶11

¶12

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. ( Oral )

¶13

The petitioners through ins t ant petition under Article 22 7 of Constituti o n of India are seeking setting aside of orders dated 02.01.2 0 26, 28.01.202 6 and 31.01.2026 whereby lear n ed Additional District Judge, H isar has direct e d them to make payment of ₹3,43,803/- and issued warra n t of attachmen t .

¶14

Land measuring 1944 Kan a l 03 Marlas was acquired v ide notificatio n dated 18.06.1984 issued unde r Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for s hort ‘1894 Act’) followed by n otification dated 25.06.1984 is s ued under Sec t ion 6 of 1894 Act. LAC, H i sar vide Award dated 22.01. 1 986 awarded c o mpensation to land owners. Th e y preferred reference petition u n der Section 18 of 1894 Act. Learned Additio n al District Judge, Hisar vide A w ard dated 24. 0 4.1989 enhanced the comp e nsation. Thereafter, both pa r ties preferred R FAs before this Court which w ere disposed of vide common o rder dated 19.0 4 .1996 and compensation was g r anted at uniform rate of ₹1,05, 0 00/AJAY PRASHER per acre. B oth the parties filed intra Cou r t appeals and this Court vide o rder 2026.07.03 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CR No.4941-2026 -2-

¶16

dated 07.07.2025 disposed of the appeals. The respondent-land owners filed execution applications. Learned Additional District Judge, Hisar in Execution Application No. EXE/1483/2018 vide order dated 02.01.2026 has directed payment of ₹3,43,803/- and vide order dated 28.01.2026 issued warrant of attachment

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that actual liability of petitioners comes to ₹2,77,143/-. The respondent-decree holder is wrongly claiming recovery of ₹3,43,803/-.

¶18

This Court at this stage does not find it appropriate to dwell into calculations made by both sides. There is minor difference between the amount claimed by decree holder and accepted by the petitioners-judgment debtors. It would be appropriate for the Executing Court to consider calculations submitted by both the sides and pass an appropriate order. Ordered accordingly.

¶19

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶20

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) July, 03, 2026 JUDGE Ajay Prasher

¶21

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶22

AJAY PRASHER 2026.07.03 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Union of India v. Ved Parkash Aggrwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Ved Parkash Aggrwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Vs Malwinder Kaur and Others

Azad Ahmed Vs State of Haryana and Others

Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Govt of Haryana and Others Vs Jamila

Chanderwati and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Labh Singh Sidhu and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Rajender Vs State of Haryana and Others