Delhi High Court
Virender Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 January, 2018
$~8 & 9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 31st January, 2018
+ CM(M) 809/2016 and CM 30566/2016 and 30568/2016
VIRENDER SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. S.K. Rout, Mr. R. Godara and
Mr. Aman Mehrotra, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mrs. K.
Kaomudi Kiran Pahak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha
and Mr. Kushal Raj Tater, Advs. for R-1
Mr. B.S. Kharb, Adv. for R-2 to 6
+ CM(M) 153/2017 and CM 5051/2017
ANNU SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. B.R. Kaushik, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mrs. K.
Kaomudi Kiran Pahak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha
and Mr. Kushal Raj Tater, Adv. for R-1
Mr. B.S. Kharb, Adv. for R-2 to 6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The controversy which is subject matter of these two petitions
arises out of an award of compensation that was passed in the wake of
acquisition of lands in which the parties herein claim interest in terms
of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (since repealed).
2. The matter before the Land Acquisition Court presided over by
Additional District Judge is at the stage of execution proceedings (Ex.
127/2014). It appears the said proceedings were taken out by Roshan,
a person in whose favour compensation was awarded. Roshan
concededly died on 09.11.1986. It is not disputed that an application
under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
was filed by his sons on which concededly some order was passed on
28.01.1992.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that Smt. Har Kaur, widow of
Roshan Lal and his three daughters Ratni Devi, Omwati and Ram Piari
had relinquished their respective shares and had executed some
documents to that effect. While the proceedings were continuing on
the application of the said three daughters, the Additional District
Judge called for a verification report (LR verification report) which
was considered on 03.10.2015. It appears the petitioners who had
sought to take over the execution proceedings were not represented on
that date before the concerned Court.
4. The Additional District Judge by order dated 03.10.2015
accepted the LR verification report and by directions to such effect,
allowed the said three daughters to come on record as legal heirs also
holding / observing that "each one of them is entitled to compensation
according to their shares".
5. The first captioned petition was filed challenging the above
order dated 03.10.2015 on the averments that the impleadment of the
three daughters and the observation that they were entitled to share in
the compensation was in the teeth of the order that had been passed on
28.01.1992 and also ignoring the fact that they had actually
relinquished their respective rights in the compensation.
6. While the first above captioned petition was pending, the
petitioners also moved an application for review under Section 114 of
the CPC, registered as case no. M-85/2015 which was dismissed by
the Additional District Judge by order dated 13.05.2016. Noticeably,
in the said order dated 13.05.2016, the Additional District Judge
observed that no order had been passed on the application under
Order XXII Rule 3 of the CPC which had been submitted earlier
presumably on 20.12.1986 before the Land Acquisition Collector.
The Additional District Judge also observed that there has been no
adjudication by any court as to who amongst the legal representatives
of the deceased Roshan Lal is entitled to a share in the compensation
and as to who amongst them is to be excluded. Yet, he dismissed the
review application holding that there was no fault in the order dated
03.10.2015 adding that "there has been no order of the court holding
that the three daughters and widow of deceased Roshan Lal had
relinquished their share of compensation in favour of three sons of
Roshan Lal".
7. The dismissal of the review application by order dated
13.05.2016 has the effect that the order dated 03.10.2015 would stand
and bind the parties.
8. Apparently, the approach of the Additional District Judge has
been wholly mis-guided. If there has been no adjudication on the
application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the CPC filed in 1986 till date
and if there has been no adjudication by any court as to which of the
legal heirs of Roshan Lal is entitled to share in the compensation or on
the issue as to whether the three daughters and widow of deceased
Roshan Lal had or had not relinquished their share in the
compensation, then there was no occasion for the Additional District
Judge to direct by order dated 03.10.2015, that each of the daughters
would be "entitled to compensation according to their shares".
9. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside to the
effect that while the three daughters would be allowed to be party to
the proceedings in the execution case, the issue as to which of the
legal heirs of Roshan Lal are entitled to share in compensation will be
determined by the Additional District Judge in accordance with law.
10. The petitions and the applications filed therewith are disposed
of with these directions.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JANUARY 31, 2018
yg
