Jagdish Chander Deceased Through Lrs v. State Of Haryana And Others

CR-4885-2025 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4885-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.07.2026 Jagdish Chander (Deceased) Through his Legal Heir ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Priyavrat Parashar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner through instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 23.04.2025 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad has dismissed Civil Miscellaneous Application filed by him seeking recovery of interest and solatium.

2.

The petitioner was owner of land situated in Village Kajal Heri, Tehsil and District Fatehabad which was acquired vide notification dated 07.08.1996 issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short '1894 Act') followed by notification dated 17.01.1997 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act for the construction of Sidhmukh Fidder. The Land Acquisition Collector vide Award dated 22.08.1997 granted compensation of ₹1,00,000/- for Nehri; ₹70,000/- per acre for Tal and ₹52,539/- for House. This Court in RFA No.4415 of 2003 enhanced the amount of compensation to ₹1,06,200/-. The petitioner instituted Execution Petition which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.08.2015. Thereafter, he filed MOHIT KUMAR 2026.07.02 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CR-4885-2025 (O&M) -2Civil Miscellaneous Application before Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad seeking recovery of interest and solatium which was dismissed vide order dated 23.04.2025.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Executing Court has wrongly rejected his claim for interest.

4.

Heard the arguments and perused the record.

5.

From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner filed Execution Application which was disposed of on 06.08.2015 as respondent discharged its liability. The amount deposited by respondent was duly accepted by the petitioner. The calculation made by respondent-State was also accepted by the petitioner. Despite the said fact, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Application which has righty been dismissed by Executing Court. The petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. 6.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 02.07.2026 Mohit Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHIT KUMAR 2026.07.02 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.