CR-9901-2025 connected cases & Ors. v. M/s A.P.J.R. Investment & Real Estate Pvt. Ltd & Anr.

Judgment

1. CR-9901-2025 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corpora&on Limited (HSIIDC) Vs. M/s A.J.P.R. Investment & Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and another

2. CR-9904-2025 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corpora&on Limited (HSIIDC) Vs. M/s Camino Developers Pvt. Ltd. and another

3. CR-9906-2025

Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corpora&on Limited (HSIIDC) Vs. Smt. Premwa& and another

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

11.01.2005 under Sec&on 4 of the Land Acquisi&on Act for development of KMP Expressway situated in different villages, including village Patli Hazipur. The Land Acquisi&on Collector vide award No.19 dated 10.05.2006 SARITA RANI 2026.01.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR-9901-2025 and connected cases awarded compensa&on @ (cid:1)12,50,000/- per acre. Dissa&sfied with the said award, the landowners sought references under Sec&on 18 of the Land Acquisi&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&es, this Court enhanced the market value to ₹62,11,700/- per acre. Aggrieved by the order of this Court, both the par&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&&on holding that landowners are not en&tled to any enchancement of compensa&on more than the award given to them by learned Land Acquisi&on Collector.

5. It is next submiGed that, in the interregnum, several landowners ini&ated execu&on proceedings before the Execu&ng Court seeking release of compensa&on at the rate determined by the Reference Court. As no interim protec&on had been granted in favour of the State or its beneficiary department, the pe&&oner was compelled to deposit the compensa&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&&ons by the Reference Court, the pe&&oner ini&ated separate execu&on pe&&ons, seeking a direc&on for refund of the excess amount already withdrawn by the landowners along with statutory interest. The Execu&ng Court, however, dismissed all such execu&ons vide order dated 19.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), holding that an execu&on pe&&on was not the appropriate remedy. It reasoned that res&tu&on under Sec&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&on 144 CPC statutorily mandates restora&on of the par&es to the posi&on they would have occupied but for the erroneous decree. The principle of actus SARITA RANI 2026.01.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR-9901-2025 and connected cases curiae neminem gravabit—the act of the Court shall prejudice no one— requires refund of excess compensa&on. Courts have consistently held that where res&tu&on is sought due to reversal or varia&on of an award or decree, an execu&on pe&&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&ng Court’s finding that the proper remedy lies under Sec&on 144 CPC, is legally sound.

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

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

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

11. It is clarified that, while deciding the applica&ons under Sec&on 144 CPC, the concerned Court shall adjudicate the maGer uninfluenced by any observa&ons made in the impugned order of the Execu&ng Court, and shall dispose of the maGer strictly in accordance with SARITA RANI 2026.01.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR-9901-2025 and connected cases law, keeping in view the principles governing res&tu&on and refund of excess compensa&on post-appeal.

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

09.01.2026 (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:2) (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes No SARITA RANI 2026.01.09 17:01 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order