Arawali Power Company vs Kuldeep And Others
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
106+212+215+216+217+218+224+102+204
CR-4562-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 03.09.2026
ARAWALI POWER COMPANY ...Petitioner
Versus
KULDEEP & ORS. ...Respondents
And
Sr.
No.
Case Number Appellant(s) Respondent(s)
2. CR-4569-2023 (O&M) Arawali Power Company Smt. Bharpai & Ors.
3. CR-4563-2023 (O&M) Arawali Power Company Dharmender & Ors.
4. CR-4571-2023 (O&M) Arawali Power Company Om Parkash & Ors.
5. CR-4572-2023 (O&M) Arawali Power Company Dharampal & Ors.
6. CR-4575-2023 (O&M) Arawali Power Company Surender Singh & Ors.
7. CR-4576-2023 (O&M) Arawali Power Company Smt. Bharpai & Ors.
8. CR-4580-2023 (O&M) Arawali Power Company Kartar Singh & Ors.
9. CR-4583-2023 (O&M) Arawali Power Company Baljeet Singh & Ors.
10. CR-4585-2023 (O&M) Arawali Power Company Satish & Ors.
11. CR-4592-2023 (O&M) Arawali Power Company Joginder Singh Tokas
& Ors.
12. CR-6495-2023 (O&M) Bharpai & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
13. CR-6584-2023 (O&M) Om Parkash & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
14. CR-6595-2023 (O&M) Satish & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors.
15. CR-6732-2023 (O&M) Surender Singh (deceased)
through LRs & Anr.
State of Haryana & Ors.
16. CR-6140-2023 (O&M) Joginder Singh Tokas State of Haryana & Ors.
17. CR-6264-2023 (O&M) Smt. Bharpai & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
18. CR-6275-2023 (O&M) Dharmender & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors.
19. CR-6349-2023 (O&M) Dharampal & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
20. CR-6420-2023 (O&M) Kuldeep State of Haryana & Ors.
21. CR-6496-2023 (O&M) Kartar Singh (deceased)
through LRs & Ors.
State of Haryana & Ors.
22. CR-4570-2024 (O&M) Baljeet Singh State of Haryana & Ors.
23. CR-1115-2024 (O&M) Arawali Power Co. Pvt. Ltd. Sube Singh & Ors.
24. CR-1563-2024 (O&M) Satay Bhagwan & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
25. CR-1741-2024 (O&M) Satay Bhagwan & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
26. CR-4041-2024 (O&M) Umed Singh & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
27. CR-4085-2024 (O&M) Ram Kishan & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors.
28. CR-2451-2024 (O&M) Ramesh & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors.
29. CR-3159-2024 (O&M) Sher Singh & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors.
30. CR-9751-2025 (O&M) Rajesh (deceased) through
LRs & Ors.
State of Haryana & Ors.
31. CR-9754-2025(O&M) Sat Parkash (deceased)
State of Haryana & Ors.
through LRs
32. CR-7443-2023 (O&M) Virender Kumar Jakhar & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors.
33. CM-1336-CI-2026 in
Bharpai and Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
RFA-2283-2014
34. CR-984-2024 Arawali Power Co. Pvt. Ltd. Ramesh & Ors.
35. CR-1006-2024 (O&M) Arawali Power Co. Pvt. Ltd. Sher Singh & Ors.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -2-
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate and
Mr. Varun Parkash, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CR-4562-2023)
for applicant (in CM-1336-CI-2026 in RFA-2283-2014 )
Mr. Vivek Sheoran, Advocate and
Ms. Rhea, Advocate for the petitioner (in CR-4570-2024)
and for respondent No.1 (in CR-4583-2023)
Mr. Shailendra Jain, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Samkiti Jain, Advocate, Mr. B.K. Bagri, Advocate and
Mr. Munish Sharma, Advocate
for petitioner(s) (in CRs No.6495, 6584, 6595, 6792, 6140,
6264, 6275, 6349, 6420, 6496, 7443 of 2023, CRs No.3159,
9754 of 2024 and CRs No.9751 and 9754 of 2025)
for the respondent/landowners (in CR Nos.4562, 4563, 4569,
4571, 4572, 4575, 4580, 4585, 4592 of 2023, CRs No.1115,
984, 1006 of 2024)
Mr. Jasraj Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.3 ( in CR-4041-2024)
Mr. Pawan Kumar Hooda, Advocate,
Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, Advocate (through V.C),
Mr. Ankit Nain, Advocate and
Mr. Sumit Ruhal, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
( in CRs No.1563, 1741, 4041, 4085 of 2024)
Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate
for Arawali Power Company ( in CRs No.4562, 4563, 4569,
4571, 4572, 4575, 4576, 4580, 4583, 4585, 4592, 6495,
6584, 6595, 6732, 6140, 6264, 6275, 6349, 6420, 6496, 7443
of 2023, CRs No. 4570, 1115, 984, 1006, 1563, 1741, 4085,
2451, 3159 of 2024, CRs No.9751, 9754 of 2025)
Mr. Abhinav Kalia, DAG Haryana
Mr. Abhishek Yadav, DAG Haryana
Mr. Priyavrat Parashar, A.A.G. Haryana
*
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -3-
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. As common issues are involved in the captioned Civil
Revisions filed by landowners as well as beneficiary agency, with the
consent of both sides, are hereby disposed of by this common order. The
beneficiary agency-Arawali Power Company has filed CM-1336-CI-2026
in already adjudicated appeal i.e. RFA-2283-2014 seeking clarification of
order dated 01.05.2015 passed by this Court. The said application is
directly connected with civil revisions filed by both parties, thus, it is
hereby adjudicated along with the Civil Revisions.
2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed
from CR-4562-2023.
3. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order
dated 28.07.2023 whereby Ld. Additional District Judge, Jhajjar has
ordered for apportionment of the deposited amount towards interest.
4. The State of Haryana vide notification dated 16.01.2007 read
with notification dated 12.04.2007 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) respectively acquired
respondent’s land. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘Collector’)
passed four different awards on 20.07.2007. The Collector awarded
compensation @ ₹16,00,000/- per acre. The landowners approached this
Court which vide order dated 04.02.2016 enhanced the market value from
₹16,00,000/- to ₹29,00,400/- per acre. The petitioner preferred SLP. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court vide interim order dated 11.11.2016 directed the
petitioner to make deposit of 25% of enhanced amount. The petitioner on
30.11.2016 deposited 25% of the enhanced amount. The petitioner
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -4-
deposited all statutory benefits along with interest. The respondent on
11.02.2017 withdrew its execution application before the Lok Adalat. The
Supreme Court vide order dated 05.09.2017 reduced the market value to
₹25,00,000/- per acre. The petitioner deposited balanced 75% amount
along with statutory benefits and interest on 18.01.2018. The respondent
withdrew its execution application on 22.02.2018. The respondent filed
another execution application seeking interest for the delayed period
which occurred in filing appeal before this Court. The respondent also
disputed calculation of principal amount as well as interest paid by the
petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per
judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Executive Engineer,
Nimna Dudhna Project, Selu, District Parbhani, Maharashtra 2020
AIR SC 717, Dhiraj Singh (D) Tr. LRs Etc. Vs. Haryana State & Ors.
2014(14) SCC 127, Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 2025
SCC OnLine SC 896 and by this Court in Balmy Kesar (deceased) Vs.
Land Acquisition Collector (SDO-C), Ajnala & Ors. , Law Finder Doc
ID#1690910 and Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Law Finder Doc
ID#2865635 interest is not payable for the period during which there was
delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Court. In the present case,
there was delay of more than 600 days in filing appeal before this Court.
The delay was condoned and appeal was admitted for final hearing. In
the order whereby delay was condoned, it was not specifically mentioned
that landowner would be entitled to interest even for the delayed period.
As it was not specifically mentioned that interest would be payable for
the delayed period, the landowners were not entitled to interest. The
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -5-
petitioner never challenged interim order because as per law laid down by
Supreme Court, interest is not payable for the delayed period. The
doctrine of merger is inapplicable because petitioner never challenged
interim order. In the absence of challenge to said order, this Court can
clarify interim order to the effect that interest is not payable for the
delayed period.
6. With respect to calculation of interest and appropriation of
amount deposited towards interest he submits that Executing Court has
not made calculation as per law laid down by Supreme Court in
‘Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India’ , 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 207. The
petitioner in compliance of orders of Supreme Court deposited 25% of
differential amount of compensation which included market value,
additional amount, interest and solatium. The moment 25% amount was
deposited the liability of interest on the differential 25% amount ceased to
exist. The petitioner did not deposit amount with Collector whereas
amount was deposited with the Executing Court. While depositing
amount with the Executing Court a calculation sheet was submitted. The
landowners withdrew deposited amount and duly signed calculation sheet
wherein it was categorically disclosed that deposited amount represents
principal as well as interest. No intimation in the form of Form-D was
required to be given to the landowners because calculation sheet duly
signed by landowners amounts to intimation as well as acceptance by
landowners.
7. Per contra , learned counsel for respondent submits that this
Court vide order dated 10.02.2014 condoned the delay. Delay was not
condoned subject to denial of interest for the delayed period. As and
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -6-
when interest is denied, it is specifically mentioned in the order that
landowner would not be entitled to interest for the delayed period. The
order dated 10.02.2015 merged in the order dated 04.02.2016 whereby
main appeal was adjudicated. In the main order, it was specifically
mentioned that landowners shall be entitled to statutory benefits as per
provisions of the Act. This order made it clear that landowners are
entitled to interest even for the period during which there was delay in
filing appeal before this Court. The petitioner preferred SLP before
Supreme Court which was converted into civil appeal. Supreme Court
partially allowed petitioner’s appeal and reduced the amount of
compensation from ₹29,00,400/- per acre to ₹25,00,000/- per aacre. The
petitioner neither in the appeal nor during the course of hearing raised
question of interest. Order of this Court merged in the order of Supreme
Court especially in view of the fact that petitioner’s SLP was not
dismissed in limine whereas it was converted into civil appeal and
thereafter was partially allowed.
8. With respect to interest and appropriation of the deposited
amount, he submits that as per paragraph No.52 of judgment of Supreme
Court in Gurpreet Singh (supra) , the amount deposited by judgment
debtor has to be adjusted towards interest. Supreme Court neither in
interim nor final order observed about heads whereunder amount had to
be deposited. The petitioner deposited amount without intimation to the
landowners. They at a later stage came to know about the deposit of
compensation with Executing Court. They were released payment,
however, no notice in Form-D was served upon landowners. In the
absence of notice in Form-D, they could not ascertain whether amount
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -7-
has been proposed to be adjusted towards compensation and statutory
benefits besides interest. They had reason to believe that amount has
been paid towards interest. The receipt produced by petitioner cannot be
treated as intimation to landowners or their consent of manner of deposit
by decree holder. The alleged calculation submitted before Court was
never supplied to them.
9. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
10. From the pleadings and arguments of both sides, the
following questions arise for the consideration of this Court:
i) Whether the petitioner is liable to pay interest for the
period of delay in filing appeal before this Court?
ii) Whether Executing Court has rightly appropriated
amount deposited by petitioner firstly towards interest
and thereafter towards compensation?
Question No. i) Whether the petitioner is liable to pay interest for
the period of delay in filing appeal before this Court?
11. The petitioner is a private limited company which required
land for setting up a power plant at village Jharli, District Jhajjar. Object
of the setting up of plant was to augment shortage of electricity. For the
aforesaid purpose, the State Government issued a notification under
Section 4 of 1894 Act. The Collector passed award under Section 11.
Landowners preferred application under Section 18 and Reference Court
upheld the amount of compensation determined by the Collector. Many
landowners preferred appeals before this Court which enhanced the
amount of compensation from ₹16,00,000/- to ₹29,00,400/- per acre. A
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -8-
very few landowners filed appeals along with application seeking
condonation of delay. Period of delay was in the range of 600-700 days.
This Court vide order dated 10.02.2014 condoned the delay. The order
dated 10.02.2014 reads as:-
“ Delay applications
Heard.
For the reasons mentioned in the applications,
delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Applications stands disposed of accordingly.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
Main Appeals
Heard.
Admitted.
List along with RFA No.36 of 2012.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each
connected case.”
11.1 Appeal was ordered to be heard along with connected
appeals. Delay was condoned on 10.02.2014 and main appeal was heard
and decided on 04.02.2016 along with RFA No.266 of 2012 . This Court
while enhancing amount of compensation held that the landowners shall
also be entitled to all the statutory benefits under the provisions of the
Act. The operative part of the order dated 04.02.2016 reads as:
“In view of what has been discussed hereinabove
and taking a holistic view of the matter to do complete and
substantial justice between the parties, in consonance with
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
cases referred to hereinabove, this Court is of the
considered view that the land owners in all these cases
would be entitled to receive the compensation for their
acquired land @ Rs.29,00,400/- per acre from the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Act.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -9-
No contrary evidence or judicial precedent was
pressed into service nor any other argument was raised on
behalf of either of the parties.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the cases noted above, coupled with the reasons
aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that
two appeals filed by the beneficiary department, i.e.
Aravali Power Company Private Limited have been found
wholly misconceived, bereft of merit and without any
substance, thus, these these must fail and the same are
hereby dismissed. The appeals and cross objection filed by
the land owners deserve to be partly accepted and the
same are hereby allowed to the extent indicated above. The
land owners in these appeals are held entitled to receive
the compensation for their acquired land @ Rs.29,00,400/-
per acre from the date of notification under Section 4 of the
Act. Besides this, the land owners shall also be entitled to
all the statutory benefits available to them, under the
relevant provisions of the Act.
Resultantly, with the observations made above, all
the aforesaid appeals stand disposed of, in the afore-said
terms, however, with no order as to costs.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
12. The petitioner preferred SLP before Supreme Court. Matter
came up for consideration before Supreme Court on 11.11.2016 which
granted leave and ordered the petitioner to deposit 25% of the difference
between the amount payable as per Reference Court and the High Court.
Order dated 11.11.2016 reads as: -
“Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
25% of the difference between the amount payable
as per the Reference Court and the High Court shall be
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -10-
deposited by the petitioner with the Reference Court within
four weeks from today and the said amount shall be
permitted to be withdrawn by the respondents concerned
on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Reference
Court.
Subject to the above directions, there shall be stay
of the implementation of the impugned judgment. ”
13. The petitioner in compliance of order dated 11.11.2016 of the
Supreme Court deposited 25% of the difference between the amount
payable as per Reference Court and High Court. The Apex Court vide
order dated 05.09.2017 partially allowed petitioner’s application and
dismissed appeals of the landowners. The Apex Court reduced amount of
compensation from ₹29,00,400/- to ₹25,00,000/- per acre. The Executing
Court while releasing compensation has declined interest for the period
there was delay in filing appeal before this Court.
14. The petitioner is claiming that Executing Court has rightly
denied interest of 626 days i.e. period of delay in filing appeal before this
Court. The landowners have filed revision seeking setting aside of order
of Executing Court to the extent interest has been denied for the delayed
period. The petitioner on one hand is opposing petition filed by
landowners and on the other hand seeking clarification/modification of
order dated 10.02.2014 whereby delay was condoned by this Court. As
per petitioner, it is settled law that interest is not payable for the delayed
period. The petitioner is also of the opinion that where Court has
condoned delay without observing that interest would be payable, it
should be assumed that Court has denied interest for the period of delay.
Arguments of the petitioners are misconceived and deserve to be rejected.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -11-
At the time of adjudication of application seeking condonation of delay,
Appellate Court is not supposed to determine question of interest. The
Appellate Court while condoning delay may observe that State would not
be liable to pay interest for the period there was delay in filing the appeal.
Wherever Appellate Court records that interest would not be payable, it
means delay has been condoned subject to the condition of denial of
interest. Wheresoever such a condition is not imposed, it cannot be
assumed that Appellate Court has denied interest for the delayed period.
The Appellate Court while passing final order may deny interest for the
period of delay. In the case in hand, this Court while disposing of appeal
has held that landowners shall be entitled to all the statutory benefits
available under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner is accepting that
interest under Section 28 or 34 is a statutory benefit. The petitioner by
paying interest for the period other than delay has accepted that Appellate
Court while enhancing compensation has granted interest. The interim
order whereby delay was condoned and final order whereby amount of
compensation was enhanced and landowners were held entitled to
statutory benefits make it clear that petitioner is liable to pay interest for
the entire period i.e. including period of delay. Interim order whereby
delay was condoned could be challenged, however, petitioner opted to
accept it. The interim order merged in the final order and in the final
order, there was direction to pay statutory benefits.
15. The petitioner preferred appeal before Supreme Court. A
perusal of SLP filed before Supreme Court reveals that petitioner did not
raise question of interest for the delayed period. There is nothing in the
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -12-
interim or final order of the Supreme Court disclosing that petitioner at
any stage disputed its liability qua interest for the delayed period. The
petitioner has woken up because Executing Court travelling beyond the
orders of this Court & Supreme Court has denied interest of 626 days i.e.
period of delay in filing appeal before this Court. It is settled law that
Executing Court is not required to go behind the decree. It is supposed to
implement the decree. It cannot travel beyond the decree. The appellate
order passed by this Court clearly holds the landowners entitled to
statutory benefits. There is nothing in the interim and final order denying
the interest for the period of delay. Interim and final orders passed by
Supreme Court are also silent on the question of interest for the period of
delay because petitioner never disputed its liability of interest for the
period of delay.
16. It is true that in the judgments cited by petitioner, the Courts
have denied interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal. The
Appellate Courts have condoned delay subject to non-payment of interest
for the period of delay. The interest has been denied either while passing
interim or final order. In case where interest is granted by High Court, the
Supreme Court has denied interest where appellant-State has specifically
raised question of denial of interest.
In the present case, the petitioner remained silent before this
Court as well as Supreme Court. This Court while passing final order
treated at par all the landowners either appeal was filed within limitation
or beyond prescribed period of limitation. The petitioner was supposed to
get final order dated 06.02.2016 modified from Supreme Court with
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -13-
respect to grant of interest for the period of delay. The petitioner primarily
disputed question of determination of compensation. The petitioner’s
appeal was partially allowed by Supreme Court, thus, order dated
06.02.2016 passed by this Court merged in the final order passed by
Supreme Court. The principle of merger is applicable and this Court
cannot deny interest for the period there was delay in filing appeal before
this Court. Argument of the petitioner that interim order passed by this
Court whereby delay was condoned is an independent order and can be
modified, cannot be countenanced because it has merged in the final order
dated 04.02.2016 passed by this Court. The aforesaid order could be
challenged before Supreme Court before passing of final order, however,
it merged in the final order the moment appeal was finally adjudicated. In
the final order, there was specific order to pay statutory benefits, thus,
argument of the petitioners that non-grant of interest in the interim order
whereby delay was condoned amounted to denial of interest ceased to
exist.
17. In view of principle of merger; non-challenge of interim
order whereby this Court condoned the delay; final order dated
04.02.2016 whereby landowners were held entitled to all the statutory
benefits besides enhanced amount of compensation; non-challenge of
interim order passed by this Court and modification of High Court’s final
order dated 04.02.2016 by Supreme Court by order dated 05.09.2017, this
Court is of the considered view that interim order dated 10.02.2014
passed by this Court cannot be modified and Executing Court has
wrongly denied interest of 626 days i.e. period of delay in filing appeal
before this Court.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -14-
Question No. ii) Whether Executing Court has rightly appropriated
amount deposited by the petitioner firstly towards interest and
thereafter towards compensation?
18. The petitioner as well as landowners are claiming that
interest should be calculated as per judgment of Supreme Court in
Gurpreet Singh (supra). This Court vide order dated 15.09.2022
dismissed petitioner’s Civil Revision No.3894 of 2022 forming an
opinion that the landowners had no choice but to accept interim amount
deposited by the petitioner. The Reference Court has rightly held that
landowners shall be entitled to adjust payment received in a staggered
manner firstly towards interest and thereafter towards principal. The
petitioner filed SLP (C) No.22664 of 2022 which was disposed of vide
order dated 06.05.2025 with an observation that the petitioner and
respondent may submit calculation before the Reference Court which will
decide as per Paragraph 51, 52 and 54 of the judgment in Gurpreet Singh
(supra) . The Executing Court has adjusted interim amount deposited by
petitioner towards interest. The Executing Court has formed an opinion
that entire amount deposited at interim stage should be adjusted towards
interest. The Reference Court has noticed judgment of Supreme Court in
Gurpreet Singh (supra) .
19. The petitioner is claiming that while depositing 25% as per
orders of Supreme Court, the petitioner had categorically expressed its
intention of adjustment of deposited amount towards principal and
interest. The petitioner before Executing Court submitted calculation of
apportionment along with application. The 25% amount ordered to be
deposited by Supreme Court was calculated head-wise i.e. market value,
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -15-
additional compensation (12% p.a.), solatium (30%), interest @ 9% for
first year and 15% p.a. for the remaining period. The petitioner had
deposited amount with respect to different landowners on different dates.
There were more than 800 landowners. As an example, the petitioner
produced application dated 23.09.2016 filed before Executing Court and
order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the Executing Court. For the ready
reference, order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the Executing Court reads as
below:
“An application for payment of enhanced
compensation as per direction/order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India dated 26.8.2016, passed in SLP No.
18034/2016, 18245/2016, 18622/2016, 19468/2016 and
13761/2016 filed by A.P.C.P.L. Jharli against Judgment of
the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh passed in RFA'S No.266/12, 33/2012,
4991/2014, 4719/13, 2059/2014 decided on 4.2.2016, filed
today. It be checked and registered. In compliance of the
above referred orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in case titled as Arawali Power Company Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. Joginder Singh Tokash and ors.', passed on 26.8.2016,
has attached cheque No.686963 and 686964, dated
22.9.2016 of amount of Rs. 12745743/- + 19854972/- total
amount 32600715/- (Rupees Three Crore Twenty Six Lac
Seven Hundred Fifteen Only) drawn on Punjab National
Bank Railway Road, Bahadurgarh on account of payment
of enhanced compensation amount in RFA's No.266/12,
33/2012, 4991/2014, 4719/13, 2059/2014 decided on
4.2.2016 for the acquired land of village Goria, Jharli,
Mohanbari and Khanpur Khurd for setting up of Thermal
Power Project by Aravali Power Company Private Limited.
The A.P.R. of enhanced compensation amount duly
prepared by the applicant office, copy of order of the
Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -16-
Court is also enclosed.
The office of this court is directed to deposit the
cheques of compensation amount, immediately and the
same may be disbursed to the land owners/decree holders
as per detail given in the enclosed A.P.R. submitted by the
applicant. File be consigned to the records, after due
compliance.”
20. From the perusal of above-quoted order, it is evident that
petitioner had submitted apportionment chart along with application form.
It is part of the record of Executing Court. The calculations sheet
prepared by petitioner was duly signed by the landowners. The
landowners were duly identified by Numberdar of the village. They have
signed on a sheet which was disclosing apportionment of the deposited
amount towards different heads.
21. Learned counsel for the landowners has vehemently pleaded
that landowners were unaware of the appropriation of the amount
deposited by petitioner. 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 petitioner was required to be
adjusted towards interest. The petitioner and landowners 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
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -17-
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
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
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -18-
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.
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-
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -19-
holder of his intention. We, thus, approve the ratio of Prem
Nath Kapur (supra) on the aspect of appropriation.”
22. From the reading of aforesaid judgment, it is evident that
Paragraph 52 specifically deals with deposit of part of compensation as
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.
23. 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 v. National Fertilizers Corporation of
India Ltd., (1996)2 SCC 71 as approved by Supreme Court in Gurpreet
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -20-
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 petitioner submitted calculation sheet appropriating
deposited amount towards various heads. The calculation sheet was duly
signed by landowners while accepting compensation. The petitioner has
shown to this Court calculation sheet duly signed by the landowners. The
petitioner by furnishing calculation sheet expressed its intention of
appropriation of distinct sums towards various heads. The landowners
duly accepted said calculation by withdrawing deposited amount and
further appending their signatures on the calculation sheet. This amounted
to due intimation to them and they cannot claim separate intimation in
Form-D from Collector. The amount, as ordered by Supreme Court, was
deposited with Executing Court and landowners withdrew the same.
There was no question of intimation by Collector in Form-D. Filing of
calculation sheet and signatures of landowners over 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.
24. In the backdrop, this Court is of the considered opinion that
amount deposited by petitioner pursuant to interim orders of Supreme
Court was required to be appropriated towards various heads and could
not be appropriated towards total interest liability which was finalized
after disposal of the appeal. Appropriation of amount deposited as per
interim orders of Supreme Court towards interest would amount to unjust
enrichment.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CR-4562-2023 (O&M) and connected cases -21-
25. In the wake of above discussion and findings, question of
interest on the period of delay in filing appeals before this Court is
answered against the petitioner and question of appropriation of amount
deposited as per interim order of the Supreme Court against the
landowners.
26. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
September 03, 2026
Deepak DPA
Whether Speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.09.10 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment