Santokh Singh vs State of Punjab

L.N. Mittal, J.—In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to order dated 2.12.2011 Annexure P/1 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot (Reference Court). Petitioner''s father Jugraj Singh had filed reference petition No. 29 dated 18.4.2006 u/s 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the State of Punjab. The said case was consolidated with another reference No. 25 of 18.4.2006, titled Charanjit Singh and others versus Punjab State and another. During pendency of the reference, Jugraj Singh died on 29.11.2008. Petitioner Santokh singh claiming himself to be son and legal heir of Jugraj Singh filed application Annexure P/3 for impleading him as legal representative (LR) of Jugraj Singh. However, the said application remained undecided by the Reference Court. The consolidated references were decided by the Reference court vide award dated 16.12.2009. On receiving certified copy of the said award, petitioner learnt that the application moved by him for impleading him as LR of Jugraj Singh had not been decided.

In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner filed application dated 28.1.2010 Annexure P/2 for deciding application Annexure P/3 filed by him while the reference was pending.

Learned Reference Court vide impugned order dated 2.12.2011 Annexure P/1 has directed the petitioner to get succession certificate regarding estate of Jugraj Singh. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this revision petition to assail the said order.

Notice of the revision petition is not required to be issued to respondent State of Punjab because respondent was ex parte in the Reference Court when order Annexure P/1 was passed.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had filed application Annexure P/3 while the reference was still pending and therefore, the petitioner should not suffer if said application Annexure P/3 was not decided by the Reference court before deciding the main reference. There is considerable force in the aforesaid contention. Keeping in view the circumstances noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner could not have been directed to obtain succession certificate because the petitioner had filed application Annexure P/3 for impleading him as LR of Jugraj Singh while the reference was still pending in the Reference court. Consequently, impugned order passed by the Reference Court is perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. As a necessary consequence of the discussion aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P/1 passed by the Reference Court is set aside. Application Annexure P/2 filed by the petitioner is allowed and the Reference Court is directed to decide application Annexure P/3 in accordance with law. Appropriate order regarding impleading of legal representative of Jugraj Singh since deceased shall be passed after issuing notice to all natural heirs of Jugraj Singh because the petitioner is claiming to be his sole heir on the basis of alleged Will of Jugraj Singh although Jugraj Singh has also left behind other natural heirs as submitted by counsel for the petitioner.