State of Punjab vs Tej Kaur

J.V. Gupta, J.—This petition is directed against the order of the Executing Court dated September 19, 1983, whereby the application filed on behalf of the legal heirs of Harnek Singh, deceased, was allowed.

Certain land belonging to three brothers, Jarnail Singh, Mohinder Singh and Harnek Singh, was acquired. Award was given by the Collector on February 26, 1970. Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act), was claimed by the claimants. The Additional District Judge, Barnala, vide order dated December 9, 1974, enhanced the amount of compensation. During the pendency of the reference before the Additional District Judge, Harnek Singh, one of the claimants, died and his legal representatives were brought on the record. Dissatisfied with the order of the Additional District Judge, dated December 9, 1974, only Jarnail Singh and Mohinder Singh filed Regular First Appeal No. 165 of 1975 (Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab), in this Court. The said appeal was allowed by this Court on November 27, 1980, and the amount of compensation was further enhanced. Admittedly, no appeal was filed by the legal representatives of Harnek Singh, deceased, nor they were parties to the appeal filed by Jarnail Singh and Mohinder Singh in this Court. The present application giving rise to this revision petition was filed on behalf of the legal representatives of Harnek Singh who claimed compensation at the rate which was allowed by this Court in the abovesaid regular first appeal. That application was contested on behalf of the State of Punjab on the ground that they had never filed any appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge, dated December 9, 1974, and, therefore, they were not entitled to the enhanced compensation as ordered by this Court in the abovementioned regular first appeal. However, the learned Additional District Judge, relying upon State of Haryana v. Bishan Singh, 1981 PLJ 40 and Punjab State v. M/s. Globe Motors, 1981 PLJ 73, allowed the application and directed the State Government to pay the enhanced amount of compensation in terms of this Court judgment dated November 27, 1980, in the abovementioned regular first appeal. Dissatisfied with the same, the State of Punjab has filed this revision petition in this Court.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and going through the rulings relied upon by the Additional District Judge, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Additional District Judge has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction causing failure of justice.

Admittedly, no appeal was filed on behalf of the legal representatives of Harnek Singh, deceased, against the order of the Additional District Judge, dated December 9, 1974, nor were they parties to the appeal filed in this Court by the other claimants. Under the circumstances, they could not claim enhanced compensation simply because it was enhanced by this Court in the aforementioned regular first appeal which was filed by the other two claimants. The authorities relied upon by the learned Additional District Judge have no applicability to the facts of the present case.

In M/s. Globe Motors'' case (supra) the solitary point raised was that since only one of the shareholders had claimed the reference under section 18 of the Act, the rest of the shareholders would not take the benefit of the same. This contention was repelled by the learned Single Judge, which was affirmed by the Letters Patent Bench. Similarly, in Bishan Singh''s case (supra), the only contention raised was that the claimants could not take the benefit of the award given by the learned Additional District Judge as they had not asked for the reference; the reference having been made by the Collector only in respect of the claim of one Kissi under section 18 of the Act. In the said case, admittedly, the names of all the cosharers were there in the reference, but the application was signed by one of them. Therefore, it was held that the cosharer who wanted enhancement in the amount of compensation was also acting on behalf of the other cosharers because their interest was joint and indivisible. Moreover, in the appeal filed by the State in that case, no objection was taken that claimants appeal was not maintainable. Thus, as observed earlier, the abovesaid two decisions have absolutely no applicability to the facts of the present case.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed with no order as to costs. The impugned order is set aside and the application filed on behalf of the legal representatives of Harnek Singh is dismissed.