Union Of India v. Ved Parkash Aggrwal
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
CR No.494 41-2026 -1I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU
UNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI IGARH Union of In CR Da R-4941-2026 (O&M) ate of decision : 03.07.2026 ndia and another .......Petitioners
Versus
Ved Parkas
CORAM:
Present:
sh Aggarwal and another .......Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JA AGMOHAN BANSAL Mr. Dharm Chand Mittal, Sen for petitioners-UOI.
**** nior Panel Counsel, JAGMOH HAN BANSAL, J. ( Oral ) 1.
The petitioners through inst tant petition under Article 227 7 of Constitutio on of India are seeking setting aside of orders dated 02.01.20 026, 28.01.2026 6 and 31.01.2026 whereby learn ned Additional District Judge, H Hisar has directe ed them to make payment of ₹3,43,803/- and issued warran nt of t.
attachment 2.
Land measuring 1944 Kana al 03 Marlas was acquired v vide notification n dated 18.06.1984 issued under r Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for s short '1894 Act') followed by n notification dated 25.06.1984 iss sued under Sect tion 6 of 1894 Act. LAC, Hi isar vide Award dated 22.01.1 awarded co ompensation to land owners. The ey preferred reference petition un nder Section 18 of 1894 Act. Learned Addition nal District Judge, Hisar vide Aw ward dated 24.0 04.1989 enhanced the compe ensation. Thereafter, both par rties preferred R RFAs before this Court which w were disposed of vide common o order dated 19.04 4.1996 and compensation was gr ranted at uniform rate of ₹1,05,0 000/- order AJAY PRASHER 2026.07.03 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document per acre. B Both the parties filed intra Cour rt appeals and this Court vide o
CR No.4941-2026 -2dated 07.07.2025 disposed of the appeals. The respondent-land owners filed execution applications. Learned Additional District Judge, Hisar in Execution Application No. EXE/1483/2018 vide order dated 02.01.2026 has directed payment of ₹3,43,803/- and vide order dated 28.01.2026 issued warrant of attachment 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that actual liability of petitioners comes to ₹2,77,143/-. The respondent-decree holder is wrongly claiming recovery of ₹3,43,803/-.
4.
This Court at this stage does not find it appropriate to dwell into calculations made by both sides. There is minor difference between the amount claimed by decree holder and accepted by the petitioners-judgment debtors. It would be appropriate for the Executing Court to consider calculations submitted by both the sides and pass an appropriate order. Ordered accordingly.
5.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) July, 03, 2026 JUDGE Ajay Prasher Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No AJAY PRASHER 2026.07.03 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document