Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1632 (PNJ)

Mohinder Singh v. Haryana State

2011-08-25

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.(Oral):- The compendium of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that the land of the petitioner claimants was acquired by the appropriate Government, for public purpose of extension of cantonment area at village Bada Rangran, Tehsil and Distt. Hisar, by way of notification dated 18.6.1984 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 2. Having completed all the codal formalities, award No.7 of the year 1985-86 was stated to have been passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Hisar. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the reference Court, which was decided, by virtue of judgment dated 28.2.1989. The market value of the acquired land was ultimately determined by the High Court. 3. As the respondents did not pay the entire compensation, therefore, the petitioner-claimants filed the execution petition for recovery of the balance amount of compensation. 4. The executing Court framed the following issues in the execution petition:- 1. How much total land of the petitioners was acquired and in which category it falls ? OPP 2. Relief. 5. The executing Court closed the evidence of the claimants and dismissed their execution petition, by means of impugned order dated 19.2.2010 (Annexure P1). 6. Aggrieved by the impugned order (Annexure P1), the petitioner claimants instituted the instant revision petition. 7. At the very outset, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to the respondents, in order to save them from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the matter, particularly when they can be compensated with adequate costs in this respect. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-claimants, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 9. As is evident from the record that the land of the petitioner-claimants was acquired and ultimately the market price was determined by the High Court. As the respondents did not make the entire payment due to them, therefore, they (petitioners) filed the execution petition for the recovery of the balance amount of compensation. 9. As is evident from the record that the land of the petitioner-claimants was acquired and ultimately the market price was determined by the High Court. As the respondents did not make the entire payment due to them, therefore, they (petitioners) filed the execution petition for the recovery of the balance amount of compensation. The execution petition was dismissed by the executing Court, vide impugned order (Annexure P1). The main ground, which appears to have been weighed with the executing Court in dismissing the execution petition was that the decree holders have availed three effective opportunities, including last opportunity, to lead their evidence, but in vain and there was no justification for adjournment of the case. Here, to me, the executing Court has slipped into a legal error in this behalf. What is not disputed here is that after filing of the execution petition, the executing Court written various letters to the respondents to deposit the balance amount of compensation. 10. Ex facie, it may be true, that the petitioner-claimants have availed three effective opportunities, including last opportunity, but taking into consideration their valuable right to recover the compensation of their acquired land, to my mind, it ipso facto, is not a valid ground to dismiss the execution petition for want of evidence. The executing Court ought to have granted adequate opportunities to the petitioner-claimants to prove their entitlement for the recovery of the remaining amount of compensation, subject to payment of costs. 11. Moreover, in a connected execution petition, the executing Court has also dismissed the execution petition for want of evidence and that order was set aside by a Coordinate Bench (Arvind Kumar, J.) of this Court, by way of order dated 13.5.2011, rendered in CR No.854 of 2011 titled as “Rajinder Vs. Union of India and another”. Not only that, in some what similar circumstances, this Court also directed the executing Court to provide two opportunities to the petitioners to adduce their evidence, through the medium of judgment dated 8.8.2011 rendered in Civil Revision No.4752 of 2011 titled as “Mohinder Singh and others Vs. Haryana State and others”. 12. Therefore, to me, the petitioners are also entitled to two adequate opportunities to adduce their evidence in this relevant direction, particularly when other side can be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant connection. 13. Haryana State and others”. 12. Therefore, to me, the petitioners are also entitled to two adequate opportunities to adduce their evidence in this relevant direction, particularly when other side can be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant connection. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of hearing of the execution petition, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order (Annexure P1) is hereby set aside. The executing Court is directed to provide two opportunities to the petitioners, to adduce their evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as costs, to be paid by the petitioners to the respondents. 14. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the executing Court forthwith, for strict compliance. --------------