Shish Ram vs State Of Haryana And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

208 CR-3025-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 12.11.2026

SHISH RAM ...Petitioner
Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ...Respondents

And
Sr.
No.
Case Number Appellant(s) Respondent(s)
2. CR-2988-2017 (O&M) Tek Chand @ Tek Ram
& Ors.
State of Haryana & Anr.
3. CR-8864-2017 (O&M) Rakesh Kumar & Ors. State of Haryana & Anr.
4. CR-8880-2017 (O&M) Narender Kumar & Ors. State of Haryana & Anr.
5. CR-8881-2017 (O&M) Tej Pal (deceased)

through LRs & Ors.
State of Haryana & Anr.
6. CR-8895-2017 (O&M) Jai Kumar & Ors. State of Haryana & Anr.
7. CR-8896-2017 (O&M) Mahender Singh & Anr. State of Haryana & Anr.
8. CR-8897-2017 (O&M) Braham Pal State of Haryana & Anr.
9. CR-9131-2017 (O&M) Mahinder & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
10. CR-3026-2019 (O&M) Mekh Chand State of Haryana & Anr.
11. CR-3027-2019 (O&M) Kela Devi (deceased)
through LRs
State of Haryana & Anr.
12. CR-3028-2019 (O&M) Sri Chand State of Haryana & Anr.
13. CR-3039-2019 (O&M) Sarjeet State of Haryana & Anr.
14. CR-3060-2019 (O&M) Padam Singh & Ors. State of Haryana & Anr.
15. CR-3072-2019 (O&M) Daya Chand & Ors. State of Haryana & Anr.
16. CR-3353-2017 (O&M) Gian Chand (deceased)

through LR
State of Haryana & Ors.
17. CR-7049-2019 (O&M) Bijender Singh (deceased)

through LRs & Anr.
State of Haryana & Anr.
18. CR-6950-2019 (O&M) Hari Chand (deceased)

through LRs & Anr.
State of Haryana & Anr.
19. CR-6964-2019 (O&M) Richhpal State of Haryana & Anr.
20. CR-6967-2019 (O&M) Rajender Singh & Ors. State of Haryana & Anr.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:- Mr. Rajiv Sharma (Hisar wale), Advocate,
Ms. Indu Bala Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Amrit Kashayap, Advocate
for petitioner(s) ( in CR-3025-2019, CR-2988-2017,
CR-8864-2017, CR-8880-2017, CR-8881-2017,
CR-8895-2017, CR-8896-2017, CR-8897-2017,
CR-3026-2019, CR-3027-2019, CR-3028-2019,
CR-3039-2019, CR-3060-2019, CR-3072-2019,
CR-3353-2017, CR-7049-2019, CR-6950-2019,
CR-6964-2019 and CR-6967-2019)
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.13 15:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CR-3025-2019 (O&M) & connected cases -2-

Mr. Yuvraj Rao, Advocate for
Mr. B.S. Tewatia, Advocate
for the petitioner ( in CR-9131-2017 )

Mr. Abhinav Kalia, DAG Haryana

Mr. Vikas P. Singh, Advocate
for respondent-NTPC
*
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions,
with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this
common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are
borrowed from CR-3025-2019.
2. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227
of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated
31.08.2018 whereby Ld. Additional District Juge, Faridabad has rejected
his claim.
3. This is second round of litigation before this Court. On the
earlier occasion, the respondent – M/s National Thermal Power
Corporation preferred petitions seeking setting aside of order dated
19.03.2018 passed by Ld. Executing Court. This Court vide order dated
17.05.2018 set aside aforesaid order and remanded the matter back to the
Executing Court with a direction to ascertain whether Form-D was
supplied to the decree holders before the withdrawal of deposited amount.
In compliance of aforesaid order, the Executing Court has passed
impugned order dated 31.08.2018. Operative portion thereof reads as:
“8. Now first question comes before this court that on
which dates Form D were submitted in the court and its
intimation was given to decree holder or not? The details
of which are mentioned in the table below:
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.13 15:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CR-3025-2019 (O&M) & connected cases -3-

Table No.1

9. The above table clearly shows that JDs-respondents
deposited Form D mentioning therein the full details of the
amount under different heads. Learned counsel for the
DH-petitioners have not disputed the factum of withdrawal
of the above stated amount by getting issued from the court
Form C. The court in order to comply with the directions
of Hon'ble High Court carried out vigorous exercise and
examine the RD register of this court for the years 2000 to
2009 and reached the conclusion that DHs after
submission of Form D at a particular time had withdrawn
the amount. The details of which are given in table given
below:
Table No.2
Sr.
No.
LAC case
Date of receiving
Amount Date of
withdrawal
1. 1075/1997 SHISH
no.
of Form D
31/03/2001
14/03/2005
03/10/2009
595985+7
01/05/2001
26/07/2005
10/10/2009
RAM
2052
2720673
6267637

10. Now question comes that whether withdrawal of the
amount in the present scenario tantamounts to intimation
of Form D to the DHs? There is no gain saying that JDs in
the Form D bifurcated the amount under different heads
like principal, solatium, interest, TDS etc. Thereafter, DHs
decided to withdraw the said amount. Here, the court is
suppose to examine the dictionary meaning of
“Intimation”. According to Oxford Dictionary the meaning
of word “intimation” is “to bring a particular fact in the
knowledge of another person”. Here, in this case, JDs
submitted Form D in the Nazarat Branch, of the court.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.13 15:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CR-3025-2019 (O&M) & connected cases -4-

Nazarat Branch is an agency of the court which is meant
for receiving the documents relating to financial
transaction involved in the matters. In this case, DHs after
coming to know about the deposit of the Form D in the
Nazarat branch opted to withdraw the same. Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Prem Nath Kapur's case which was
approved in Gurpreet Singh case (supra) held that when
an award -decree is passed specifying the amount under
different heads like amount under section 23(1), the
amount under section 23(2), amount under section 23(1A)
and interest under section 28, the JDs makes deposit
specified sums under these different heads, it will amount
to JDs intimating the DH as to how the sum deposited is to
be applied in discharge of the obligation of the JDs. Once
DH receives the payment of sums, thus deposited he would
be accepting the appropriation made by the JDs under the
award/decree on the scheme of Land Acquisition Act. If at
a particular stage there is a short fall the DHs would be
entitled to appropriate the same on general principle of
appropriation, first towards interest, then towards costs
and then towards principal, unless, of course, the deposit
is indicated to be towards specified heads by the judgment
debtor while making the deposit intimating the decree
holder of his intention. Whenever the Form D and payment
was deposited in the court, at that time there is no short
payment.
11. In the light of above discussion, this court is of the
firm opinion that Form D submitted by the JDs containing
the full details of appropriation of payment and DHs were
having notice/intimation of the same and thereafter they
opted to withdraw the same without raising any objection.
Therefore, at this stage they can not say that they had
received amount by applying the general principal of
appropriation. In view of this the DHs are not entitled for
any amount and as such this execution petition can not
proceed further. Same stands disposed of. File after due
compliance be consigned to record room.”
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.13 15:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CR-3025-2019 (O&M) & connected cases -5-

4. Dispute between the parties is confined to adjustment of
deposited amount towards principal vis-à-vis interest. The respondent
acquired petitioner’s land. The Collector determined amount of
compensation. The landowners preferred petition under Section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) which came to be
partially allowed by Ld. ADJ. The landowners preferred appeals before
this Court which came to be dismissed. The respondent preferred
petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which came to be allowed
and amount of compensation determined by the Reference Court was
reduced from ₹306/- per sq. yard to ₹289/- per sq. yard. The respondent
time to time deposited awarded compensation with the Court. The
petitioners withdrew deposited amount. The respondent deposited
awarded compensation in three installments. The respondent filed Form-
D while depositing amount with the Court/Collector. On two occasions,
copy of Form-D was supplied to the landowners, however, no copy was
supplied on the third occasion. The petitioners are claiming that copy of
Form-D was never supplied to them, thus, amount deposited by
respondent, at the first instance, needs to be adjusted towards interest.
They are relying upon judgments of Supreme Court in ‘ Prem Nath
Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd.’, (1996)2 SCC
71 and ‘Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India’ , 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 207
where it has been held that amount deposited by judgment debtor at the
first instance should be adjusted towards interest unless otherwise
intention is specifically expressed by the judgment debtor.
5. In the case in hand, the respondent deposited Form-D along
with awarded compensation with Nazarat Branch of the Court. The
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.13 15:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CR-3025-2019 (O&M) & connected cases -6-

landowners filed execution petitions and compensation came to be
released. They are claiming that they were not supplied copy of Form-D,
thus, amount deposited by respondent, at the first instance, should be
adjusted towards interest. Ld. Executing Court has rejected contention of
the petitioners on the ground that Form-D was deposited by Nazarat
Branch and amount of compensation was withdrawn by landowners
without protest, thus, it amounts to intimation on the part of respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that copy of
Form-D was never supplied to the petitioners. As per order dated
17.05.2018 passed by this Court, the respondent was liable to supply
copy of Form-D and in the absence of supply of copy of Form-D, the
deposited amount was required to be adjusted towards interest. This is
mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in afore-cited judgments.
7. Per contra , learned counsel for respondent submits that
respondent while depositing amount with Court duly submitted Form-D
wherein calculation was disclosed. It was made clear that deposited
amount would be firstly adjusted towards principal and thereafter towards
interest. It was responsibility of the Court, if any, to supply copy of
Form-D to the petitioners. The landowners withdrew deposited amount
without any protest. No objection was filed by them, thus, the Executing
Court has rightly rejected their claim qua adjustment of deposited amount
firstly towards interest and thereafter towards principal.
8. All the arguments raised by both sides have been recorded in
the presence of counsel for the parties. They have not raised any other
argument.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.13 15:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CR-3025-2019 (O&M) & connected cases -7-

9. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
10. From the perusal of impugned order, it is evident that the
respondent submitted apportionment chart while depositing awarded
compensation with the Court. The apportionment chart was submitted in
the Form-D. As per impugned order, calculation sheet was submitted
with Nazarat Branch of the Court. The petitioners filed execution
application and withdrew amount deposited by the respondent. At the
stage of withdrawing money, no objection or protest was lodged by them.
11. Learned counsel for the landowners has vehemently pleaded
that landowners were unaware of the appropriation of the amount
deposited by respondent. They were not given intimation in Form-D.
They claim that Collector submits details of the deposit made by the
State/beneficiary to the Executing Court and intimation in Form D is sent
to the landowners. In the present case, the landowners have not received
intimation, thus, partial amount deposited by respondent was required to
be adjusted towards interest. The petitioner and respondent are relying
upon judgment of Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh (supra) . Relevant
extracts of judgment read as:-
“51. Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers
Corporation of India Ltd., (1996)2 SCC 71 : (1995) Supp. 5
SCR 790 also indicates that when an award-decree is passed
specifying the amounts under different heads like the amount
under Section 23(1), the amount under Section 23(2), the
amount under Section 23(1A) and the interest under Section
28 and the judgment debtor makes a deposit of specified
sums under these different heads, it will amount to the
judgment debtor intimating the decree holder as to how the
sum deposited is to be applied in discharge of the obligation
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.13 15:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CR-3025-2019 (O&M) & connected cases -8-

of the judgment debtor. Once a decree holder receives the
payment of the sums thus deposited, he would be accepting
the appropriation made by the judgment debtor under the
award decree on the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act.
This part of the reasoning in Prem Nath Kapur (supra) is, of
course, also based on the reasoning that there is some
inconsistency in Order 21 Rule 1 of the Code and the
scheme of the Act. Prem Nath Kapur (supra) also indicates
that when the decree itself specifies the amount payable
under different heads (the decree has to do so under Section
26 of the Act) and amounts are deposited towards those
different heads, the appropriation would be on the basis of
the direction under the decree which must be taken to be one
for crediting the various sums paid under particular heads.
On the scheme of the Act, especially the wording of Section
34 and Section 28 of the Act it is not possible to say that the
said approach made in Prem Nath Kapur (supra) is
erroneous or is unreasonable or is not a line of approach
that is not warranted. Therefore, when the judgment debtor
State makes a deposit along with the calculation
appropriating distinct sums towards various heads of
compensation as awarded by the reference court or by the
appellate court in the appellate decree, and the amount is
received by the decree holder, the decree holder must be
taken to be not entitled to seek an appropriation as if the
judgment debtor has not made any intimation and that he is
entitled to appropriate at his volition. Considering the
scheme of compensation under the Act in the context of the
specific nature of the items specifically referred to in Section
23 of the Act, we are of the view that the approach adopted
in Prem Nath Kapur (supra) is justified. A reappropriation
by seeking to reopen the satisfaction already rendered might
result in interest being made payable even on that part of the
principal amount that had already been deposited and
received by the decree holder and that would be in the realm
of unjust enrichment.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.13 15:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CR-3025-2019 (O&M) & connected cases -9-

52. What is to happen when a part of the amount awarded
by the reference court or by the appellate court is deposited
pursuant to an interim order of the appellate court or of the
further appellate court and the awardee is given the liberty
to withdraw that amount? In such a case, the amount would
be received by the decree holder on the strength of the
interim order and the appropriation will be subject to the
decision in the appeal or the further appeal and the
direction, if any, contained therein. In such a case, if the
appeal is disposed of in his favour, the decree holder would
be entitled to appropriate the amount already received by
him pursuant to the interim order first towards interest then
towards costs and the balance towards principal as on date
of the withdrawal of the amount and claim interest on the
balance amount of enhanced compensation by levying
execution. But on that part appropriated towards the
principal, the interest would cease from the date on which
the amount is received by the awardee. Of course, if while
passing the interim order, the court had indicated as to how
the deposited amount is to be appropriated, that direction
will prevail and the appropriation could only be done on the
basis of that direction.
53. Thus, on the whole, we are satisfied that the essential
ratio in the Prem Nath Kapur (supra) on appropriation
being at different stages is justified though if at a particular
stage there is a shortfall, the awardee decree holder would
be entitled to appropriate the same on the general principle
of appropriation, first towards interest, then towards costs
and then towards the principal, unless, of course, the deposit
is indicated to be towards specified heads by the judgment
debtor while making the deposit intimating the decree-
holder of his intention. We, thus, approve the ratio of Prem
Nath Kapur (supra) on the aspect of appropriation.”
12. From the reading of aforesaid judgment, it is evident that
Paragraph 52 specifically deals with deposit of part of compensation as
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.13 15:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CR-3025-2019 (O&M) & connected cases -10-

per orders of the Appellate Court. It holds that decree-holder would be
entitled to appropriate the amount received by him firstly towards interest
and then towards the principal. Para 51 of the judgment holds that when
the judgment debtor makes a deposit along with calculation appropriating
distinct sums towards various heads of the compensation as awarded by
the Reference Court or by the Appellate Court, the decree-holder must be
taken to be not entitled to seek an appropriation as if the judgment debtor
has not made any intimation and he is not entitled to appropriate at his
volition. Para 53 further clarifies that appropriation at different stages is
justified though if at a particular stage there is shortfall, the awardee
decree-holder would be entitled to appropriate firstly towards interest and
then towards principal unless the deposit is intimated to be towards
specified heads and there is intimation to the decree-holder.
13. The landowners are not disputing the fact that judgment
debtor may express its intention to appropriate distinct sums towards
various heads of the compensation. They are claiming that as per afore-
cited judgment, intimation must be given to decree-holder and in the
present case, intimation in the form of Form-D was not given to them.
Contention of the landowners/decree-holder is misconceived because as
per judgment of Prem Nath Kapur (supra) as approved by Supreme
Court in Gurpreet Singh (supra) , the judgment debtor may make deposit
under distinct heads and if the decree holder accepts the amount he
cannot seek re-appropriation because it would amount to unjust
enrichment. In the present case, the respondent submitted calculation
sheet appropriating deposited amount towards various heads. The
respondent by furnishing calculation sheet expressed its intention of
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.13 15:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CR-3025-2019 (O&M) & connected cases -11-

appropriation of distinct sums towards various heads. The landowners
duly accepted said calculation by withdrawing deposited amount. This
amounted to due intimation to them and they cannot claim separate
intimation in Form-D. The amount, as ordered by Courts, was deposited
with Executing Court along with Form-D and landowners withdrew the
same. There was no question of intimation in Form-D. Filing of
calculation sheet amounted to compliance of requirement of expression of
intention of judgment debtor and intimation to decree-holders. There was
not only intimation to the landowners but also their consent.
14. In the backdrop, this Court is of the considered opinion that
amount deposited by respondent pursuant to orders of the Courts was
required to be appropriated towards distinct heads and could not be
appropriated towards total interest liability which was finalized after
disposal of the appeal. Appropriation of amount deposited as per orders
of Supreme Courts towards interest would amount to unjust enrichment.
15. In the wake of above discussion and findings, there seems to
no occasion to interfere with the impugned order. The petitions deserve
to be dismissed and accordingly hereby dismissed. This Court is not
oblivious of the fact that scope of interference under Article 227 is very
limited.
16. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
November 12, 2026
Deepak DPA
Whether Speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.13 15:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment