Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1269 (PNJ)

Harbhajan v. Ruppa

2003-09-10

HEMANT GUPTA

body2003
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J. - Land measuring 970.46 acres situated in village Gual Pahari, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was acquired for development and utilization of land as Institutional-cum-Residential-cum-Commercial area vide notification dated 11.6.1982 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"). The said land included the land owned by respondent No. 1 and his other co-sharers. Prior to the notification, the appellant entered into an agreement of purchase of the agricultural land measuring 66 Kanals 6 Marlas on payment of Rs. 2,22,000/- as earnest money on 17.8.1981. The other four co-sharers returned the amount of the earnest money to the appellant. The present respondent No. 1 has not returned the amount of Rs. 50,000/- which is payable by him. Since the amount was not paid and the Land was acquired, the appellant sought reference under Section 30 of the land Acquisition Act for apportionment of the amount of compensation. 2. In reply to the claim of the present appellant, the respondent denied the right of the appellant to claim Rs. 50,000/- out of the share of the respondent. It is further stated that if there was any such agreement, it had become time barred and now it cannot be enforced nor Harbhajan Singh sought specific performance of the alleged agreement. It is further stated that the alleged joint agreement stood cancelled as it is no more binding on any of the co-promisors. 3. The learned trial Court dismissed the reference petition of the appellant under section 30 of the Act relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sujan Singh Sadhana v. Mohkam Chand (deceased by LRs) and others, AIR 1983 Punjab & Haryana 180, wherein it has been held that the agreement of sale of immovable property does not create any interest in or charge on any such property. Where the property is compulsorily acquired, the vendee is not entitled to compensation money lying with the Collector. 4. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the judgment relied upon by the learned trial Court is distinguishable. It has been pointed out that the said judgment arose out of a suit for specific performance wherein it has been held that no decree for specific performance of the agreement can be passed since the land has been compulsorily acquired. It has been pointed out that the said judgment arose out of a suit for specific performance wherein it has been held that no decree for specific performance of the agreement can be passed since the land has been compulsorily acquired. Instead, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Mohammad Akil Khan v. Premraj Jawanmal Surana and another, AIR 1972 Bombay 217 to contend that the appellant is a person interested within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act and, thus, entitled to clam in the compensation to the extent of the amount of earnest money paid to the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of this Court in Sujan Singh Sadhanas case (supra). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records of the case, I am of the opinion the reliance of the learned trial Court on the judgment of this Court in Sujan Singh Sadhanas case (supra) is misplaced. The appellant has not filed a suit for specific performance nor claimed that he has a right to seek specific performance of the agreement. Reliance was placed on Section 3(b) of the Act which reads as under :- "3(b) the expression "person interested" includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land;" 7. It is the argument of the learned counsel that the term "person interested" is much wider than the principle of an agreement creating interest in the land. The definition of "person interested" in Section 3(b) of the Act is wide and it includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of acquisition of land. It is the argument of the learned counsel that the term "person interested" is much wider than the principle of an agreement creating interest in the land. The definition of "person interested" in Section 3(b) of the Act is wide and it includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of acquisition of land. The learned counsel has particularly referred to the following observations of the Bombay High Court in Mohammed Akil Khans case (supra) :- ".....We have already pointed out that under the definition of Section 3(b) a buyer like clamant No. 2 would be undoubtedly a person interested as he can claim the amount advanced by him together with interest from the land and in the absence of the land from the money which represents the converted value of that land. When Section 9 calls upon all persons to put in claims to compensation for all interests in such land, we are of the view that an interest of the present type held by claimant No. 2 is also intended to be converted. There need not be a transfer of immovable property in favour of a person before the could be described as a person entitled to claim for an interest in the land. The language of Section 9(1) of the Land Acquisition Act appears to us to be broad enough to include interest and claim for charge on land which would amount to an interest in the land for the purpose of Section 9(1). This being so claimant No. 2 had undoubtedly right to apply under the Land Acquisition Act to the Collector for apportionment of the compensation amount." 8. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court wherein it has been held that the buyer like the appellant is undoubtedly a person interested as he can claim the amount advanced by him together with interest from the land in the absence of the land from the money which represents the converted value of that land. The appellant may not be having an interest as contemplated under the Transfer of Property Act but he is a person interested to claim apportionment in view of the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act. 9. The appellant may not be having an interest as contemplated under the Transfer of Property Act but he is a person interested to claim apportionment in view of the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act. 9. It may be noticed that execution of the agreement to sell dated 17.8.1981 was not disputed by the respondent in the written statement. What was stated was that the appellant has no right to claim a sum of Rs. 50,000/- or that the agreement is not binding on the respondent or it is inoperative. Even the question framed by the reference Court is to the effect whether the appellant has a right to apportionment in the amount of compensation awarded for the acquired land on the ground that Roopa had entered into an agreement to make sale thereof in his favour and accepted from him a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money. In view of the fact that the respondent has not denied the receipt of Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money for the purpose of sale of the land acquired, the appellant is entitled to recover the said amount from the respondent. 10. Consequently, I set aside the impugned award of the learned Additional District Judge and allow the present appeal. Respondent No. 1 is liable to pay Rs. 50,0000/- to the appellant on account of earnest money received for the sale of his share of agricultural land. However, if Rs. 50,000/- is not paid within a period of six months from today, the appellant shall be entitled to interest on the said amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of application under Section 30 of the Act. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.