CR-8141-2025 connected cases & Ors. v. Dharambir & Ors.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Ms. Surbhi Rana, Advocate for Mr. Pritam S. Saini, Advocate for the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner. Mr. Bhim Singh, Advocate for the landowners. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) It is a bunch of 5 Civil Revisions, all filed under Ar(cid:27)cle 227 of the Cons(cid:27)tu(cid:27)on of India for quashing the common order dated 01.08.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned ADJ, Gurugram, whereby various execu(cid:27)on pe(cid:27)(cid:27)ons filed by pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner herein were dismissed.

Following is the list of pe(cid:27)(cid:27)ons, being disposed of by this common order:- (cid:1)(cid:2) (cid:3)(cid:2) (cid:4)(cid:2) (cid:5)(cid:2) (cid:6)(cid:2) CR-8141-2025 CR-8149-2025 CR-8154-2025 CR-8170-2025 CR-8171-2025 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corpora(cid:27)on Limited (HSIIDC) vs. Dharambir and others Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corpora(cid:27)on Limited (HSIIDC) vs. Malkhan Singh and others Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corpora(cid:27)on Limited (HSIIDC) vs. Krishan and another Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corpora(cid:27)on Limited (HSIIDC) vs. Ram Niwas and others Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corpora(cid:27)on Limited (HSIIDC) vs. Vijay Pal and others YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.13 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [2]

Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner submits that the land of several landowners situated in Village Kassan was acquired by the State of Haryana. Dissa(cid:27)sfied with the award of the Land Acquisi(cid:27)on Collector, the landowners sought references under Sec(cid:27)on 18 of the Land Acquisi(cid:27)on Act, 1894. The Reference Court, vide its award dated 03.10.2012, re-assessed the market value of the land at ₹50,70,359/- per acre.

Subsequently, in appeals preferred by the State under Sec(cid:27)on 54 of the Act, this Court reduced the market value to ₹43,61,400/- per acre. Aggrieved by such reduc(cid:27)on, the landowners approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Vide judgment dated 08.04.2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed the market value at ₹47,10,500/-.

It is next submiEed that, in the interregnum, several landowners ini(cid:27)ated execu(cid:27)on proceedings before the Execu(cid:27)ng Court seeking release of compensa(cid:27)on at the rate determined by the Reference Court. As no interim protec(cid:27)on had been granted in favour of the State or its beneficiary department, the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner was compelled to deposit the compensa(cid:27)on calculated at the higher rate fixed by the Reference Court.

AGer the Supreme Court finally determined the market value, the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner ini(cid:27)ated separate execu(cid:27)on pe(cid:27)(cid:27)ons, seeking a direc(cid:27)on for refund of the excess amount already withdrawn by the landowners along with statutory interest. The Execu(cid:27)ng Court, however, dismissed all such execu(cid:27)ons vide order dated 01.08.2025, holding that an execu(cid:27)on pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on was not the appropriate remedy. It reasoned that res(cid:27)tu(cid:27)on under Sec(cid:27)on 144 CPC was the only correct procedural mechanism once the original decree (here, the Reference Court award) had been varied or reversed by a superior court. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.13 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [3]

Once a decree is modified or reversed in appeal, Sec(cid:27)on 144 CPC statutorily mandates restora(cid:27)on of the par(cid:27)es to the posi(cid:27)on they would have occupied but for the erroneous decree. The principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit—the act of the Court shall prejudice no one— requires refund of excess compensa(cid:27)on. Courts have consistently held that where res(cid:27)tu(cid:27)on is sought due to reversal or varia(cid:27)on of an award or decree, an execu(cid:27)on pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on is not maintainable, because what is to be executed is not the original decree but the altered liability arising by virtue of the appellate judgment. Therefore, the Execu(cid:27)ng Court’s finding that the proper remedy lies under Sec(cid:27)on 144 CPC, is legally sound.

Learned counsel for the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner submits that the Execu(cid:27)ng Court ought to have either treated or converted the execu(cid:27)on pe(cid:27)(cid:27)ons into applica(cid:27)ons under Sec(cid:27)on 144 CPC, in view of the seEled principle that substance prevails over form and procedural technicali(cid:27)es must not defeat substan(cid:27)ve rights. In the alterna(cid:27)ve, he prays that the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner be permiEed to withdraw the execu(cid:27)on pe(cid:27)(cid:27)ons with liberty to file appropriate applica(cid:27)ons under Sec(cid:27)on 144 CPC before the competent Court.

Courts have inherent powers under Sec(cid:27)on 151 CPC to treat a mis-labelled or defec(cid:27)ve proceeding as one maintainable in law, par(cid:27)cularly when the relief claimed remains otherwise permissible. However, conversion is discre(cid:27)onary and depends on the nature of defects, the stage of proceedings, and whether prejudice may be caused to the opposite party. Seeking withdrawal with liberty therefore remains a proper and unobjec(cid:27)onable course.

It is clarified that, while deciding the applica(cid:27)ons under Sec(cid:27)on 144 CPC, the concerned Court shall adjudicate the maEer uninfluenced by any observa(cid:27)ons made in the impugned order of the Execu(cid:27)ng Court, and shall dispose of the maEer strictly in accordance with law, keeping in view the principles governing res(cid:27)tu(cid:27)on and refund of excess compensa(cid:27)on post-appeal.

As no adverse order is being passed against the respondents and the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)ons are dismissed as withdrawn at the request of the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner, issuance of no(cid:27)ce of mo(cid:27)on is not required. Disposed of accordingly. A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected files.

12.05.2026 Yogesh (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Yes/No Whether reportable:- YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.13 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document