Civil Revision No. 4480 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4480 of 2009 Date of decision : 22.3.2010 Punjab Waqf Board ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Bhag Singh, for the petitioner Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the respondent S. D. ANAND, J. -Petitioner-Punjab Waqf Board owned certain area of land which came to be acquired by the State of Punjab and compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced by the District Judge, Patiala, vide order dated 8.12.1989. In the course of the impugned award, the enhancement of compensation was ordered as under:- 1. Chahi Rs.50,000/- per acre 2. Nehri Rs.50,000/- per acre 3. Gair Mumkin Rs.12,000/- per acre Apart therefrom, the learned Reference Court observed that the petitioner herein would also be entitled to amount of solatium and interest as available under the amended provisions of the Act. The official respondents paid up certain amount but did not pay up the amount in terms of provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The plea raised by the petitioner to the claim of interest of 12% on the additional amount was declined by the learned Reference Court by observing that the petitioner herein ought to proceed to obtain Civil Revision No. 4480 of 2009 -2- orders to that effect from the learned Reference Court. Learned State counsel nods in affirmation of the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Court. The petition deserves to be allowed for simple reason that the learned Reference Court categorically held in the impugned order that apart from the enhancement of compensation amount, petitioner shall be entitled to other benefits of solatium and interest as available under the amended provisions of Act. In the face of that predicament, learned State Counsel argues that it is a fit case where the relevant benefit should be declined to the petitioner herein because the impugned order came to be granted in the year 1989 ( 8.12.1989); whereas the execution application for the purpose aforementioned came to be filed in the year 2001. The plea raised is devoid of force. The execution plea can be filed within the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act and even the filing of execution application in the year 2001 was within the indicated period of limitation. A right vesting in a party by means of a judgment and decree cannot be denied to it just because the execution plea had not been filed promptly. The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. March 22, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE