(1.) This judgment shall dispose of 115 civil revision petitions and a Civil Writ Petition (details whereof are at the foot of the judgment) filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC').
(2.) After having heard the learned counsels representing the respective parties, the following questions arise for adjudication:-
(3.) On the one hand, the learned counsels representing the landowners while relying upon the following judgments A. Viswanatha Pillai vs. Special Tehsildar for Land Acquisition, (1991) 4 SCC17, Surjit Singh and othes vs. State of Haryana and another, 2007 (1) R.C.R.(Civil) 352, Ram Chander and others vs. The State of Haryana and another, 2016 (4) Law Herald 3533, Smt. Parwati and another vs. The State of Haryana and another, 2009(5) R.C.R.(Civil) 572, Sombir and others vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP-35666 of 2019, decided on 9/12/2019), Patiala Improvement Trust through its C hairman vs. S. Amar Singh and others, 2005(2) RC.Rfcivil) 332, Ramesh Singh (died) by LRs vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 4 SCC 469, and Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation vs. Randhir Singh and others, 2022 (2) R.C.R.(Civil) 520, contend that once the market value of the acquired land of the co-sharers has been enhanced by the Court, the remaining co-sharers can file an execution petition without any judgment or decree in their favour. In substance, their main argument is that the State cannot discriminate with its subjects, particularly when they are identically situated in a case. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act') are required to be interpreted in a manner which ensure that all the land-losers get adequate, fair and reasonable compensation for the compulsory acquisition of their land.