Urban Improvement Trust vs Ninnu Ram S/O. Chhotan Singh, By ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3450 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7122/2018


Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur through its President, UIT,
Bharatpur (Raj.) Now through Its Secretary.

                                                                         ----Petitioner

                                      Versus

1.     Ninnu    Ram       S/o     Chhotan        Singh,       R/o    Buddh-Ki-Hat,
       Bharatpur (Raj.)

2.     Mohan Singh S/o. Chhotan Singh, R/o Buddh-Ki-Hat,
       Bharatpur (Raj.) (Deceased) Represented By-

       2/1. Hotam Singh S/o Sh. Mohan Singh

       2/2. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Mohan Singh

       2/3. Smt. Beena D/o Sh. Mohan Singh

       2/4. Virendra S/o Sh. Mohan Singh

       2/5. Rati @ Ratni W/o Shri Mohan Singh

       2/6. Smt. Mona D/o Shri Mohan Singh
       All R/o Buddh-ki-Hat, Bharatpur (Raj.)




3.     Balveer Singh S/o Chhotan Singh R/o Buddh-Ki-Hat,
       Bharatpur (Raj.)

4.     The     Land     Acquisition        Officer      And       City     Magistrate,
       Bharatpur (Raj.)

5.     Smt. Kiran Devi W/o Sh. Harna, (Deceased)

6.     Ramvati      D/o     Sh.     Harna,       R/o     Village     Boloni,    Tehsil
       Roopbas, distt. Bharatpur (Raj.)

                                                                    ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.L.L. Gupta, Adv. with Mr.Vikram Jonwal, Adv.

                                         (2 of 4)               [CW-7122/2018]


         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

                                   Order
29/04/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-UIT

challenging the orders dated 18.11.2017 and 07.12.2017 passed

by the Executing Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the

Reference Application was filed under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act, by Balveer Singh, Ninnu Ram and Mohan Singh for

enhancement of compensation, registered as Reference Case

No.11/2001 and vide judgment dated 19.07.2008, the reference

court did not find any ground to enhance the amount of

compensation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on

26.10.2009, the above named three persons i.e. Balveer Singh,

Ninnu Ram and Mohan Singh, filed Execution Petition claiming an

amount of Rs.2,19,203/- with regard to Khasra No.4372.

Learned counsel submitted that land which was part of

Khasra No.4395 was subject matter of another Reference i.e.

Reference Case No.130/1999 and in the Execution Petition itself, it

was admitted on behalf of claimants that they have received the

entire amount of Rs.81,375/-.

Learned counsel submitted that during pendency of the

Execution Petition, report dated 31.08.2012 was submitted with

regard to amount of Rs.4,61,088/-was claimed to be payable with

respect to both Khasra Nos.4372 & 4395 and as such, the

Executing Court had attached an amount of Rs.4,61,088/- from

the Bank Account of the petitioner.

(3 of 4) [CW-7122/2018]

Learned counsel submitted that as far as the amount so

attached in the Execution Petition is concerned, the petitioner had

submitted an Objection Petition under Section 47 and 151 CPC

and also challenged the award of interest.

Learned counsel submitted that all objections being

raised, the Executing Court vide order dated 13.04.2017 has

passed the award with regard to Khasra No.4395 and same

dispute was still pending in the Reference Case No.130/1999 filed

by one Kiran Devi.

Learned counsel submitted that the Executing Court,

later on, revised the statement by awarding Rs.1,87,823/- to all

three above named persons (Balveer Singh, Ninnu Ram and

Mohan Singh).

Learned counsel submitted that such direction by the

Court below is contrary to law and the facts narrated on behalf of

the petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

perused the material available on record.

This Court finds that the Court below while passing the

impugned order dated 18.11.2017 has recorded a finding that the

claim of Kiran Devi is not treated as a part of award and the above

named three persons i.e. Balveer Singh, Ninnu Ram and Mohan

Singh, were held to be entitled for a sum of Rs.1,87,823/-.

This Court further finds that the Court below while

passing the order dated 07.12.2017, has also directed that the

requisite undertaking has to be taken from the claimants and

further, if the amount is found to be paid in excess of the

entitlement, the same was also liable to be recovered.

(4 of 4) [CW-7122/2018]

This Court finds that the proper safeguard has already

been provided in the order dated 07.12.2017 and as such, it

cannot be inferred that the Court below was oblivious of the facts

available on record.

This Court finds that no error has been committed by

the Court below while passing the impugned orders.

Accordingly, the present writ petition being devoid of

merits and same is dismissed.

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

Himanshu Soni/9

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)