Shri M L Sharma vs Union Of India & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5509 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                  Date of Decision: 5th November, 2014

+     CM(M) 1311/2013 & C.M.No.19474/2013
      SHRI M L SHARMA                                 ..... Petitioner
                    Through:          Ms. Sukhda Dhamija & Mr. S.K.
                                      Rout, Advocates

                         versus

      UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                          ..... Respondents
                    Through:          Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                         JUDGMENT

(Oral)

Petitioner has sought direction to the Land Acquisition Collector to forward petitioner's application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC for substitution of Mr. M.L. Sharma as legal heir of deceased Smt. Raj Kumari Sharma.

Vide impugned order of 3rd June, 2013, Reference Court has held that no cogent proof has been placed on record by petitioner to show that he had ever filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC before the Land Acquisition Collector and no such application lies before the Land Acquisition Collector.

During the course of hearing of this petition, it was submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that Smt. Raj Kumari Sharma had died on 2nd July, 2005 and on the basis of affidavit and undertaking of Mr. M.L.

CM(M) 1311/2013 Page 1 Sharma, legal heir of Smt. Raj Kumari Sharma, the compensation was released to present petitioner on 27th July, 2005 and the reference is still pending before the learned Reference Court.

Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and the material on record, I find that petitioner has failed to show that an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC was filed by petitioner before the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the Reference Court has rightly declined to accept the prayer of petitioner.

Finding no infirmity in the impugned order, this petition is dismissed with the observation that if petitioner had filed any such application before the Land Acquisition Collector, then petitioner can inspect the record lying with the concerned Land Acquisition Collector. In any case, nothing precludes petitioner from filing such application before the Reference Court as the reference in question is said to be still pending.

The petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.

                                                        (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                            JUDGE
      NOVEMBER 05, 2014
      s




CM(M) 1311/2013                                                       Page 2