CR-32 of 2026 connected cases & Ors. v. Virender & Anr.

Present: - Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Ms. Kanchan Sindhu and Mr. Deepak Saini, Advocates for the pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) It is a bunch of 03 Civil Revisions, all filed under Ar(cid:31)cle 227 of the Cons(cid:31)tu(cid:31)on of India for quashing the common order dated 19.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned ADJ, Gurugram, whereby various execu(cid:31)on pe(cid:31)(cid:31)ons filed by pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oner herein were dismissed.

2. Following is the list of pe(cid:31)(cid:31)ons, being disposed of by this common order -

1. CR-32-2026

2. C R-39-2026

3. CR-40-2025 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corpora(cid:31)on Limited (HSIIDC) Vs. Virender Singh and another Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corpora(cid:31)on Limited (HSIIDC) Vs. Prem Ra:an Gupta and another Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corpora(cid:31)on Limited (HSIIDC) Vs. Ram Phal and others

3. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oner submits that the land of several landowners situated in Village Patli Hazipur was acquired by the State of Haryana vide No(cid:31)fica(cid:31)on dated

11.01.2005 under Sec(cid:31)on 4 of the Land Acquisi(cid:31)on Act for development of KMP Expressway situated in different villages, including village Patli SARITA RANI 2026.01.13 17:45 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR-32-2026 and connected cases 2026:PHHC: 002565 Hazipur. The Land Acquisi(cid:31)on Collector vide award No.19 dated 10.05.2006 awarded compensa(cid:31)on @ (cid:1)12,50,000/- per acre. Dissa(cid:31)sfied with the said award, the landowners sought references under Sec(cid:31)on 18 of the Land Acquisi(cid:31)on Act, 1894. The Reference Court, vide its award dated

22.10.2019, re-assessed the market value of the land at ₹43,17,841/- per acre.

4. Subsequently, in appeals preferred by the both the par(cid:31)es, this Court enhanced the market value to ₹62,11,700/- per acre. Aggrieved by the order of this Court, both the par(cid:31)es approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the SLP remanded the case back to the Reference Court. ThereaFer, the Reference Court dismissed the reference pe(cid:31)(cid:31)on holding that landowners are not en(cid:31)tled to any enchancement of compensa(cid:31)on more than the award given to them by learned Land Acquisi(cid:31)on Collector.

5. It is next submi:ed that, in the interregnum, several landowners ini(cid:31)ated execu(cid:31)on proceedings before the Execu(cid:31)ng Court seeking release of compensa(cid:31)on at the rate determined by the Reference Court. As no interim protec(cid:31)on had been granted in favour of the State or its beneficiary department, the pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oner was compelled to deposit the compensa(cid:31)on calculated at the higher rate fixed by the Reference Court.

6. On remand back by Hon’ble Supreme Court and dismissal of reference pe(cid:31)(cid:31)ons by the Reference Court, the pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oner ini(cid:31)ated separate execu(cid:31)on pe(cid:31)(cid:31)ons, seeking a direc(cid:31)on for refund of the excess amount already withdrawn by the landowners along with statutory interest. The Execu(cid:31)ng Court, however, dismissed all such execu(cid:31)ons vide order dated 19.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), holding that an execu(cid:31)on pe(cid:31)(cid:31)on was not the appropriate remedy. It reasoned that res(cid:31)tu(cid:31)on under Sec(cid:31)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.

7. Once a decree is modified or reversed in appeal, Sec(cid:31)on 144 CPC statutorily mandates restora(cid:31)on of the par(cid:31)es to the posi(cid:31)on they SARITA RANI 2026.01.13 17:45 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR-32-2026 and connected cases 2026:PHHC: 002565 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:31)on. Courts have consistently held that where res(cid:31)tu(cid:31)on is sought due to reversal or varia(cid:31)on of an award or decree, an execu(cid:31)on pe(cid:31)(cid:31)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:31)ng Court’s finding that the proper remedy lies under Sec(cid:31)on 144 CPC, is legally sound.

8. Learned counsel for the pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oner submits that the Execu(cid:31)ng Court ought to have either treated or converted the execu(cid:31)on pe(cid:31)(cid:31)ons into applica(cid:31)ons under Sec(cid:31)on 144 CPC, in view of the se:led principle that substance prevails over form and procedural technicali(cid:31)es must not defeat substan(cid:31)ve rights. In the alterna(cid:31)ve, he prays that the pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oner be permi:ed to withdraw the execu(cid:31)on pe(cid:31)(cid:31)ons with liberty to file appropriate applica(cid:31)ons under Sec(cid:31)on 144 CPC before the competent Court.

9. Courts have inherent powers under Sec(cid:31)on 151 CPC to treat a mis-labelled or defec(cid:31)ve proceeding as one maintainable in law, par(cid:31)cularly when the relief claimed remains otherwise permissible. However, conversion is discre(cid:31)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:31)onable course.

10. Therefore, the alterna(cid:31)ve request made by learned counsel for the pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oner is accepted. Accordingly, the cluster of 03 pe(cid:31)(cid:31)ons, as men(cid:31)oned above, is dismissed as withdrawn. The pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oner is granted liberty to file appropriate applica(cid:31)ons under Sec(cid:31)on 144 CPC before the Court concerned for res(cid:31)tu(cid:31)on of the excess compensa(cid:31)on paid to the landowners.

11. It is clarified that, while deciding the applica(cid:31)ons under Sec(cid:31)on 144 CPC, the concerned Court shall adjudicate the ma:er uninfluenced by any observa(cid:31)ons made in the impugned order of the SARITA RANI 2026.01.13 17:45 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR-32-2026 and connected cases 2026:PHHC: 002565 Execu(cid:31)ng Court, and shall dispose of the ma:er strictly in accordance with law, keeping in view the principles governing res(cid:31)tu(cid:31)on and refund of excess compensa(cid:31)on post-appeal.

12. As no adverse order is being passed against the respondents and the pe(cid:31)(cid:31)ons are dismissed as withdrawn at the request of the pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oner, issuance of no(cid:31)ce of mo(cid:31)on is not required. Disposed of accordingly. A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected files.

13.01.2026 (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:2) (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes No SARITA RANI 2026.01.13 17:45 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order