Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sushila Devi vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 14 June, 2010
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters
Date of decision: 14.6.2010.
Sushila Devi
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present:
For the petitioner(s): Mr.Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Sr. Advocate with
Ms.Roopa Pathania, Advocate and
Mr.Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the respondent(s):Mr.Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate,
Mr.R.S.Chahar, Advocate and
Mr.Alok Jain, Advocate.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
-.-
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of a bunch of 30 petitions, out of which 23 have been filed by the Karnal Improvement Trust, while 7 have been filed by the claimants. The writ petitions have arisen out of a common judgment rendered by the Tribunal, while disposing of different references filed by the petitioners. However, the facts are being extracted for facilitation from CWP No.11146 of 2007.
2. Before adverting into the merits of the case and discussion thereupon, it is necessary to detail out the fact in brief disclosing CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 2 chronology of events leading to the filing of the instant petition before this Court.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the land(s) of the petitioners were acquired by the respondent No.2-Improvement Trust, Karnal (for short `Trust') under Scheme No.37 in pursuance of Resolution passed by the Trust, dated 20.8.1973, which was a part of total area measuring 12150 sq. yards. This area was previously known as old Subji Mandi. A notification under Section 36 the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for short `the Act'), was issued on 7.9.1973 which was followed by notification under Section 42 of the Act on 14.1.1976.
4. According to the averments made by the petitioners in the writ petition, the entire property acquired under the aforesaid Scheme was situated within the heart of the city and within the municipal limits, in the area of Subji Mandi. Four shops alongwith `Phar' land of the petitioners together with other owners of the land were acquired under the above Scheme. The Land Acquisition Collector vide Award dated 24.5.1976 determined the market value of the acquired property which was situated and abutted G.T. Road @ Rs.200/- per sq. yard and the property situated in old Subji Mandi @ Rs.100/- per sq. yard. No compensation was awarded to the petitioners and other land owners in respect of the land being used as `Phar' i.e. vacant land in front of their shops left for the purpose of storing, selling and conducting the auction of vegetables in the Sabzi Mandi. No compensation was awarded to the present petitioners by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of their built up shops directing that the petitioners will be allotted four shops sites/plots on payment of Rs.5,000/- per plot as per undertaking given by respondent No.2 before this Court.
CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 3
5. The Scheme provided for allotment of land to the erstwhile land owners in lieu of land acquired by the Trust. The Trust allotted land to them but the petitioners were not allotted any land under the Scheme. The petitioners challenged the action of the respondent No.2 by filing Civil Writ Petition No.6627 of 1975 titled `Sushila Devi etc. vs. State of Haryana', wherein, the respondent-Trust appeared before this Court and made a statement, which reads as under:-
"Ld. Counsel for respondent No.1 states that the scheme has been sanctioned by the State Govt. and the petitioners will be treated like all other owners of the shop or premises who are being dispossessed under the scheme, in the matter of allotment of shops or plots. On this assurance being given, Mr.Mittal does not press this petition which is dismissed as infructuous."
6. Keeping in view the statement made on behalf of Karnal Improvement Trust, the CWP No.6627 of 1975 was rendered infructuous.
7. Subsequently, the petitioners were allotted four plots on payment of Rs.5000/- per plot as development charges with the following details:-
(a) Petitioner No.1 Sushila Devi had been allotted two plots bearing No. 56A and 73 measuring 73 sq. yards.
(b) Petitioner No.2 Brij Mohan was allotted land measuring 30.5 sq. yards bearing plot No.44.
(c) Petitioner No.3 Mukesh Kumar was allotted land measuring 30.5. sq. yards bearing plot no. 45.
8. The allotment letters are Annexures P-1 to P-4, which were exhibited before the learned Tribunal as A-65 to A-68.
CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 4
9. The petitioners aggrieved by the aforesaid allotment, filed three separate Civil Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 2415 of 1977 titled as Mukesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 3305 of 1977 titled as Sushila Devi vs. State of Haryana and 3824 of 1977 titled as Brij Mohan vs. State of Haryana, on the ground that the total area of the petitioners was 375 sq. yards, whereas they have been allotted four plots measuring 134 sq. yards only. Hence they had not been given allotment as per the Scheme and in lieu of the land owned by the petitioners. All the three afore-stated writ petitions were disposed by a common judgment dated 29.8.1985. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:-
"In these three petitions Nos. 2415, 3305 and 3824 of 1977, the primary relief claimed by the petitioners is that they should have been allotted plots as oustees under Scheme No.37 of the Improvement Trust, Karnal instead of the one's which have been allotted to them now under a different scheme. It is the conceded position that all these petitioners have since sold the shops allotted to them and are thus no more in a position to surrender back the possession of those shops to the Improvement Trust Karnal even if their claim is to be accepted. In the light of that the petitions obviously have been rendered infructuous and are dismissed but with no order as to costs. It is stated for clarification sake that the dismissal of these petitions would not in any way effect the claim of the petitioners for the compensation which may be due to them in accordance with law."
10. According to the petitioners, in the reply filed by the CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 5 respondents in the above-mentioned three writ petitions, they have maintained that in fact the petitioners were owners of 142 sq. yards, which was covered area of the shops and they are not owner of the `phar'. They have not been allotted the area equivalent to their acquired land for the aforesaid reason. The controversy regarding the ownership and title of the `Phar' was left open by this Court as reference was pending before the learned Tribunal at Karnal. Meanwhile, respondent No.2 started pressing petitioner No.1 for the payment of 2 sq. yards area allotted to her in excess . Accordingly, a letter dated 15.5.1986, Annexure P-7, was issued to her which was challenged by her by filing CWP No. 386 of 1987. She argued that the question of title regarding `Phar' was yet to be decided and at that stage, it could not be decided by the Trust as to whether the area measuring two sq. yards is in excess or not. This Court while issuing notice of motion, vide order dated 23.1.1987, stayed the recovery of payment with regard to the excess area allotted to petitioner No.1. Meanwhile, land references pending before the Tribunal at Karnal came to be decided vide consolidated judgment dated 20.1.1988 titled as `Kartar Singh vs. State of Haryana', whereby value of the acquired land was fixed @ Rs.1336/- per square yard and the `Phar' area was declared as the `street'. Some more pending references were also decided by the same Tribunal, wherein different rates for different land owners were fixed.
11. The petitioners and others filed different writ petitions, which were clubbed together with Civil Writ Petition No.3489 of 1988 titled as `Vijay Kumar etc. vs. State of Haryana' which were ultimately disposed of vide order dated 15.9.1989, Annexure P-10. This Court maintained the value of the land at Rs.1336/- per sq. yard uniformally for all the claimants CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 6 and also held that the title of the Phar land vest with the owners and they are entitled to compensation for the said land at the same rate.
12. Aggrieved against the order, Annexure P-10, the Trust preferred LPA No. 1044 of 1990 which was dismissed vide order dated 29.4.1991 (Annexure P-11). The Trust thereafter preferred SLPs before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which were segregated into two different bunches. The bunch comprising 20 SLPs raised a question of title regarding the Phar area. A common question of rate of the acquired land was raised in all the SLPs. The first bunch of cases involving question of title regarding `Phar' land was decided on 11.9.1991 (Annexure P-12) and the main judgment was delivered in Civil Appeal Nos.3608 and 3614 of 1991 arising out of S.L.P. No.11059/91, 11398-99/91, 11403-06/91, 13375/91, 13487/91 and 13488-90/91 titled as `Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal vs. Leelawati and others etc.' The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for deciding the question of title as regards `Phar' area and its possession at the time of issuance of notification under Section 36 of the Act. Annexure P-12 is re- produced hereunder:
"Leave granted.
By the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, the order of remand made by the learned single Judge was affirmed. The learned Judge had held that the disputed phar belonged to the claimants who are respondents in these appeals and that they were entitled to compensation when the land was acquired under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. According to the appellants, the phar was a public property and the respondents had no right or interest in that property apart from their status as members of the public. The appellants contend that the High Court was wrong in holding that the respondents were entitled to compensation for the CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 7 acquisition of the phar.
According to the claimants/respondents the phar was private property owned by them. They say that as early as 1920 the character of this property had been considered and decided by the privy council. It was held that the phar was private property, although a portion of the land lying in front of the phar had been converted into a public road. Counsel appearing for the respondents say that a number of documents relating to title had been led in as evidence. But these documents have not been examined to trace title and possession.
We have heard counsel on both sides at length. We are not satisfied that the question of title and possession has been properly examined. The title over the phar has to be traced at least from the time of the decision of the privy council right through the years when the whole or part of the property came into possession of the custodian of evacuee properties and the subsequent changes of possession and ownership. In other words, the entire evidence, both documentary and oral, concerning the title and possession over this property from the period anterior to the partition of India must be considered and the position regarding title and possession at the time of acquisition has to be decided. The High Court in our view was wrong in holding that the property belonged to the present respondents without a proper consideration of the evidence.
In our view, the whole question has to be re-examined by the Tribunal and the parties should be afforded an opportunity to lead additional evidence, if they so desire, on the question of title and possession and other connected matters relating to the property.
In the circumstances, we set aside the findings of the Tribunal as well as the order of the High Court and direct the Tribunal to reconsider the question as aforesaid as regards the phar and pass appropriate orders. It will be open to the parties to urge all their contentions relating to title and possession of the property. We are not expressing any view on any of the CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 8 questions raised in these appeals and they are left open. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 7th November, 1991 for further directions of the Tribunal.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly."
13. The bunch of other SLPs was also disposed of vide judgment dated 9.5.1995 (Annexure P-13) titled as 'Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal vs. Parkashwanti and others' and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal on the ground that the Presiding Officer alone was not competent to assess the market value and as such, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is nonest and illegal. The observations made in Paras 13 and 26 of Annexure P13 are re-produced hereunder:
"13.The question thus arises whether the function by the Tribunal as a body is mandatory or directory? The discharge of the duties under the Act are quasi judicial. The power to determine compensation and other questions involves adjudication. The discharge of the functions by the Tribunal being quasi judicial cannot be regarded as ministerial. When the statute directs the Tribunal consisting of three members to determine compensation etc. and designates an award as judgment and decree of a civil court, it cannot be held that the quasi judicial functions of the Tribunal would be considered as directory, defeating the very purpose of the Act. Though inconvenience and delay may occasion in some cases by holding the provisions to be mandatory, but that is inescapable consequence. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it must be held that the adjudication by the three member Tribunal is imperative and mandatory determination of the compensation in disregard thereof renders the adjudication void, invalid and inoperative."
"26. The appeals are, therefore, allowed, the judgment of the High Court and the awards of the Tribunal are set aside. The Tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordance with law as CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 9 stated earlier. Several questions on merits had arisen but since not allowed to be canvassed, we are not expressing any opinion on merits. All the questions are kept at large to be dealt with in accordance with law. No costs."
14. In pursuance of the remand orders, the Tribunal restricted itself only to the aspect of ownership and possession of the phar land as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 11.9.1991. The learned Tribunal, after considering the documentary and oral evidence available on record, recorded the finding that the claimants and also their predecessors in interest have been proved to be the owners of the phar land acquired in these cases and the claimants were also proved to be in possession of the same through their tenants right from the year 1854 till acquisition thereof and that the claimants are entitled to claim compensation in respect of the phar land which is either in the shape of open land or as courtyard. The learned Tribunal upheld the rate of compensation in respect of the acquired Phar area at the rate of Rs.1336/- per sq. yard as had been awarded earlier by the learned Tribunal vide its award dated 20.1.1988.
15. The second bunch of SLPs that had been remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were also decided by the Tribunal vide its award dated 8.2.2003. The learned Tribunal allowed all the references and held that the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation in respect of their acquired property at the rate of Rs.1336/- per sq. yard as also solatium at the rate of 30%. In addition thereto the claimants were also entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking possession and at the rate of 15% per annum from the subsequent period till the date of payment. The copy of the award is on record as Annexure P-15.
16. The aforesaid award of the Tribunal dated 4.5.2002 was CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 10 challenged by the Improvement Trust before this Court by filing CWP No.13031 of 2002 titled 'Karnal Improvement Trust Vs. Ram Parshad and others'. It was principally argued on behalf of the Karnal Imprvement Trust that the Tribunal ought to have re-examined all the questions and should not have restricted itself only to the point of ownership of the Phar land. This Court while concurring with the argument raised on behalf of the Improvement Trust in its judgment dated 24.7.2003, Annexure P-16, set aside the award passed by the learned Tribunal and directed as under:-
"In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to decide the references afresh and deal with all the questions raised before it by the parties. It is once again clarified that as a result of the order of the Supreme Court dated 9.5.1995 the earlier awards of the Tribunal dated 20.1.1988 and 21.2.1989 do not exist in the eye of law and the Tribunal has to proceed with the reference denovo. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 1.9.2003. It is expected that the Tribunal shall pass afresh award within a period of four months from 1.9.2003."
17. It is worthwhile to add that the award of the Tribunal dated 8.2.2003 (Annexure P-15) was also set aside by this Court vide order dated 20.10.2003 by observing that the market value had been determined in view of the order passed in Kartar Singh's case which had been set aside and the cases were remanded for fresh decision.
18. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the matter was taken up by the learned Tribunal and both the parties were given opportunity to adduce additional evidence. The claimants did not lead any other evidence.
CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 11 However, award dated 18.10.1997, copy of order dated 29.1.2002 passed in CWP No.6031 of 1998 and copy of the judgment dated 10.2.1999 passed in RFA No.3192 of 1993 were tendered. The parties got their statements recorded that the evidence which had already been recorded be read for the purposes of decision of the references.
19. After considering the documentary and oral evidence, the learned Tribunal assessed the market value of the property on the date of its acquisition at Rs.580/- per sq. yard. Further, on the issue of ownership of the petitioner over the Phar land, the learned Tribunal observed that the claimants had proved that they were owners of the built up portion as well as the vacant land. But since the vacant land was being used by general public it would amount to dedication of the said vacant land by the claimants to the general public and consequently it shall fall within the definition of 'Street' as defined under Section 2 (23) of Haryana Municipal Act, 1973.
20. The learned Tribunal also examined the question of the price of allotment of the shops and directed that the allottee should pay a sum of Rs.2325/- per sq. yard as the price for the allotted plots/shops.
21. Aggrieved of the award of the Tribunal dated 28.9.2004, Annexure P-17, the improvement Trust as well as the claimants are in the writ petitions before this Court.
22. The main grievance raised in the instant petition by the Improvement Trust was that the award with respect to the price of allotment is beyond jurisdiction and that the rate of Rs.580/- per sq. yard is on the higher side. On the other hand grievance raised by the petitioners-claimants is that the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the phar area has CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 12 become a public street by way of dedication and also that the Tribunal could not have determined the price of the allotment of shops/plots and that the learned Tribunal awarded compensation which was much less than the prevailing market value at the time of acquisition.
23. Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, taking preliminary objection that the disputed question of facts is involved in the present writ petition which cannot be gone into by this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and, have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. On merits, it has been admitted that the acquired area is 12150 square meters and not square yards. Further the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation of the vacant land in the form of 'Phar' as alleged. Rest of the paras are admitted being matter of record. It is further stated that petitioner No.1 was asked to pay an amount of Rs.3691/- against Plot No.56 and 73 for the area of 2 sq. yards which was in excess of the area allotted to her.
24. It is in this background of the case, Mr.Chopra, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, has argued that the order of the Tribunal dated 4.5.2002, Annexure P-14, passed after the order of remand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that half of the `ganj area' in Karnal, including the area in question, was purchased in the year 1854 in an auction from the Central Government by Pali Mal and Bansi Lal, predecessor-in-interest of Sumer @ Baru Mal. Learned counsel has further argued that the land in question was purchased in three lots, of 2395 sq. yards, of 2395 sq. yards and 140 sq. yards and the physical possession of the land in question was given to aforesaid persons, as is clear from the reading of Exhibits A-60 and A-61.
CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 13
25. Learned counsel has further argued that as per site plan, Exhibit P1/1, it is made out that by sale-deed dated 15.12.1932, Exhibit P-1, Tara Chand and Asa Ram, the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners, purchased the property from the aforementioned Sumer Chand @ Baru Mal. This fact is duly recorded in sale-deed, Exhibit, P-1, and stands accepted in the case of Kartara Singh as is evident from the reading of Exhibits A-3 to A-4, which is also reflected in the site plan Exhibit P1/1.
26. Further reliance has been placed upon the Exhibits A-15 to A- 34, A-36 and A-46, from which it is made out that the area in question, i.e., the court yard/phar land was given on lease by the petitioners to different persons. It has also been submitted that in the statement of Gurbax Singh RW/3, who was examined by the Trust, it has been admitted that the `Phar' in front of the shop was in possession of the owners. The relevant portion of the statement of Gurbax Singh, RW/3 is as under:-
".......I was a tenant in a shop owned by Tara Chand at a monthly rent of Rs.55/-. XX XX XX XX XX XX.
The shop again said there were five partners in the firm Bodh Raj Gurbax Singh. The rasta was maintained by the occupants of the shops as it was laid by the occupants. The business in Subzi Mandi mentioned above was not so well as in the market on the G.T.Road at that time. Till demolition, firm Bodh Raj Gurbax Singh was in possession of the said shop. XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX The Phar in front of the shop was in our possession and user. XXXmn:-
The tenancy with regard to the shop and the phar was one."
CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 14
27. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the claimants, while supporting the submissions made by Mr.Chopra, has placed reliance on the statement of Dr. Ujjagar Singh, RW/7, Retired Medical Officer, Municipal Committee, Karnal, wherein it emerges that the 'tharras' in the old Subzi Mandi were maintained by the owners, whereas the maintenance of the roads was carried out by the Municipal Committee. The relevant portion of the statement of Dr.Ujjagar Singh, Retired Medical Officer, Municipal Committee is as under:-
"....I have seen the Old Subzi Mandi. The Tharras in the old Subzi Mandi area were being maintained by the owners and the road was cleaned by the Municipal Committee. There was no drain in that area of Old Subzi Mandi. Mr.Pratap Singh Chawla, PW, present today was the Sanitary Inspector in the Municipal Committee"
28. However, this evidence was not accepted by the learned Tribunal.
29. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the claimants has further referred to the Resolution, dated 29.9.1938, passed by the Municipal Committee, Karnal, vide which a notice was ordered to be served upon the owners, namely Asa Ram and Tara Chand, for construction of a drain (Nali) at their own expenses. In pursuance thereof, notice, Exhibit RW5/X was served upon Asa Ram for getting the drain dugged out. As per this site plan at mark 'B' attached with the notice Exhibit RW5/X pertaining to the record of Ram Parshad Vs. Improvement Trust, the courtyard has been shown as the property of owners.
30. Attention of the Court has also been drawn to the statement of CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 15 Jit Singh, Head Draftsman of the Trust, who prepared the site plans from Exhibits A-1 to A-6 and also the statement of the then Trust Engineer - Shiv Charan Sharma, RW-1, who had signed the said site plans, and submitted that, according to the aforementioned site plans, the open courtyard (`Phar') in front of the shops has been shown to be owned by the claimants/petitioners. Learned counsel has further argued that as per Exhibit A-59, which is the Survey Plan prepared prior to the acquisition, the `Phar' area in front of the built-up shops acquired for Scheme No.37 was not a part of the street road. Thus, the above survey plan clinches the issue, in question, as the same was prepared prior to the acquisition by an Engineer of the Trust.
31. Learned counsel has further argued that there is nothing to suggest that the Committee ever collected teh bazari from the users of the 'Phar' land, in question, i.e., vegetables sellers and retailers. It has also been argued that the respondent- Trust did not take any plea in the written statement so as to establish the fact that the `Phar' area was a street . The petitioners had categorically asserted in paras 1 and 2 of the writ petition that they were owners of the acquired land and in this regard, there is no specific denial to the above fact by the Trust nor it has been pleaded whether any part of the acquired property is a thorough fair and not owned by the petitioners.
32. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the respondent-Trust has failed to lead any evidence to prove that the land in question was ever levelled, paved, metalled or repaired by the Municipal Committee or from any public funds. It has also been argued that before any land is declared a public street by Municipal Committee under CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 16 Section 180 of the Haryana Municipal Act, the procedure prescribed therein has to be complied with.
33. Further argument has been raised with regard to determination of market value of the land, in question, @ Rs.580/- per square yard, which is improper and does not reflect the correct market value of the area at the relevant time. It has been contended that when the award was first passed by the Tribunal on 21.1.1988, the value of the acquired land was assessed at Rs1336/- per square yard. The Tribunal took into consideration the sale deeds Exhibits A-1, A-13, A-28 and Exhibit A-36 valued at 1150/-; Rs.1454/- Rs. 1230/-; and Rs. 1250/- per square yard, respectively and after taking the average price of the aforesaid sale-deeds awarded Rs.1336/- per sq. yard. The said award was upheld by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge was also dismissed on 29.4.1991. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of this Court, dated 29.4.1991 and remanded the case on the ground that the question of title had not been properly determined on the basis of evidence. Accordingly, the learned counsel contended that in this fact situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the determination of the rate and market value of the land @ Rs.1336/- per sq. yard and the same shall have a persuasive effect, despite the matter having been remanded. He has referred to the remand order passed in other set of SLPs and pointed out that the order of remand was for the reason that the award has been passed by the Presiding Officer alone without associating the assessors, and no fault was found with regard to the rate at Rs.1336/- per square yard. The learned counsel has further pointed out that as per the sale transaction Exhibit, A-30, the registered sale deed dated 30.3.1973, CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 17 rate per square yard has been recorded as Rs.1600/-. Reference has been made to another sale-deed Exhibit A-28, which is of the same date in which the rate has been mentioned at Rs.1454/- per square yard. These sale deeds were executed about six months prior to the issuance of notification of the scheme on 7.9.1973 by the Trust. Accordingly, the learned counsel has argued that these sale deeds were a better indicator for determining the market value of the land in question. The attention of the court was also drawn to the written statement Annexure R1/3 filed in CWP No. 18676 of 2005 on behalf of the petitioners-claimant, wherein as per the admission of the State/respondent, the value of the land in question was stated to be of much higher rate. The learned counsel has invited our attention to the instance of prosecution initiated by the State against the vendors, Comrade Ram Pyara and Naresh Kumar on the ground that the plot had been sold at a value lesser than the market value and the market value of the said land was Rs.62,000/- instead of Rs.40,000/- as alleged. On the basis of above, the learned counsel states that even as per the admission of the State, the market value was more than Rs. 1600/- per sq. yard.
34. It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel that the sale-deeds Exhibit R-1, R-22, R-23 and R-25 could not have been taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the market value because these sale deeds do not reflect the correct market value as the same were not executed voluntarily by a willing vendor. In those cases, the sale deeds were executed in favour of Parkashwanti, who was a tenant in the premises, and had not been paying any rent. Further, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the written statement filed in CWP No. 18676 of 2005. Therefore, he has tried to make out a point that the sale deeds relied upon CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 18 by the learned Tribunal were not reflecting the true market value.
35. The attention of the Court is also drawn to Annexure R-1/4, which is a suit for ejectment filed by the owner with respect to three shops bearing Nos.27C, 28C and 29C alongwith the Phar area against successor of Banumal on 14.4.1966. The said Banumal is the father-in-law of Smt. Leelawati and he was a tenant in the shop. Therefore, the sale deeds relied upon by the Tribunal cannot be taken into consideration as they do not demonstrate the correct market value and fall in the category of distress/non-voluntary sale.
36. Lastly, it has been argued that since the individual holdings were small, hence the sale deeds, i.e., Exhibits A13, A28 and A30 should be relied upon. Accordingly, the learned counsel has prayed that the market value for the acquired land should have been assessed at the rate of 1600/- per square yard.
37. Mr.Bhardwaj, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has further submitted that the learned Reference Court committed an error in determining the price of allotment of the plot/site @ Rs.2325/- per sq. yard. It was contended that the Scheme of Trust was 'land in lieu of land and payment of Rs. 5,000/- per site', as development charges. As per the Scheme, the Committee was entitled to claim the price of excess area, if so allotted. The letter(s) of allotment dated 5.8.76, 17.3.1976 and 5.8.1976 (Annexures P1 to P4) issued in favour of the petitioners also spell out a demand of Rs.5000/- only. The learned counsel has also argued that the respondent/Trust had affirmed the aforesaid aspect enshrined in the Scheme in question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in other writ petitions pending consideration before this Court because of which the Trust had CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 19 given an undertaking to allot the shops to the displaced persons by charging development charges @ Rs.5000/- per plot. The salient features of the Scheme have not been denied by the respondents. In the allotment letters, a demand of Rs.5000/- only has been made. It was also argued that the jurisdiction of the Reference Court was only to the extent of determination of the market value of the acquired land but the learned Tribunal travelled beyond the terms/scope of reference while doing so. In this regard, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Srikantam and others vs. Srikumaran Nair and others, 2007(1) LACC 155, wherein it has been observed that the Reference Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the question of quantum of compensation. He has also placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Prayag Upnivesh Awas and Nirman Sehkari Saimti Limited vs. Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran and another, 2003(2) LACC 170 to contend that the Reference Court cannot widen the scope of its jurisdiction or decide the matters not referred to it.
38. Relying upon the aforesaid judgments it was argued that the learned Tribunal Court travelled beyond the scope of reference and jurisdiction vested in the Tribunal and, hence, the Tribunal fell in an error while assessing the price of allotment which was purely an executive function. As the scheme had been floated and accepted by the claimants/petitioners, the terms incorporated therein became binding inter se between the parties. The Tribunal could not direct payment of any price beyond the price determined in the Scheme. Moreso, there is no such clause in the Scheme No.37 as would empower the Trust to demand a higher price. The only demand that could have been rasied by the respondent-Trust could CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 20 be with regard to the excess area, if any, allotted to the petitioners. As no excess area has been allotted, there is, thus, no clause, empowering the Trust to demand any price over and above Rs.5,000/- which was determined as development charges by the respondent-Trust. It has further been argued that even Karnal Improvement Trust has raised a challenge and impugned the award on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the price of the plot and by doing so, the learned Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. In the end, the learned counsel has argued that merely because the acquired land was being utilised for parks, streets, roads or other basic amenities the same would not justify the acquisition of the land without the payment of compensation.
39. On behalf of the respondent-Trust, Mr.Alok Jain, learned counsel has vehemently argued that the land, in question, stood vested in the Municipal Committee and falls within the definition of 'Street' as defined under Section (2) 23 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. He has further argued that the street was maintained out of the public funds and, therefore, the same vested in the Municipal Committee as provided under Section 61 of the Haryana Municipal Act.
40. He has also referred to the statement of Dr.Ujjagar Singh, Health Officer of Municipal Committee, Karnal, who had stated that the cleanliness of the phars, roads and drains and maintenance of the lights was part of the duties of the Sanitary Inspector. He has also referred to the statement of Shiv Charan Sharma, RW1, who made a statement to the effect that open space shown in the green in the site plan - Exhibit R2 was owned and possessed by the Municipal Committee. By making a reference to the evidence of this witness, the learned counsel has argued that it is clearly CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 21 established that the land, in question, was cleaned and maintained by the Municipal Committee.
41. He further argued that there is no reference from any association or society so as to establish the fact that the land, in question, was being maintained by the petitioners. On the basis of the above assertions, the learned counsel advanced his arguments by saying that by long use of the land, in question, by the public at large and since the maintenance was being carried out by the Municipal Committee out of its funds, the land, in question, shall be deemed to have been dedicated to the general public and the same has acquired the status of public street by virtue of Section 61 of the Haryana Municipal Act. The land, in question, was transferred in favour of the Trust by the Municipal Committee under Section 45 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act for the development purposes.
42. Mr. M.S.Sandhu, Advocate, the learned counsel for the Trust, has argued that Trust has kept about 72% of the total acquired area for the purposes of roads, vacant sites, parks, parking place etc. for the use of Public visiting Subzi Mandi and the remaining area to the extent of about 28% of the acquired area was kept for being used as plotable area. As the area being used by the public at large is maintained out of the municipal funds, the same has acquired the status of 'public street'. The admission of the ownership by the Trust officials was with regard to the built-up area only and the admission, if any, in the pleadings, is also rebuttable. In this behalf, he has placed reliance on a judgment rendered in M/s Gobind Parshad Jagdish Parshad v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, 1994-1, Punjab Law Reporter 76, wherein it has been held that when a varanda CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 22 was being used by the public at large it partake a character of the street and seems to remain under the control of the owners. He has concluded his arguments that the learned Tribunal has rightly reached to the conclusion that the petitioners were not the owners in possession of the Phar land on the date of issuance of notification for acquisition.
43. The learned counsel for the respondent/Trust has further stated that the sale-deeds, Exhibits A28 and A30, executed by comrade Ram Pyara, a member of the Legislative Assembly, are an aberration and cannot be taken into consideration for determining the market value since he had prior knowledge of release of the development scheme being floated in the area. He has further argued that the market trend was towards decrease in the price of land. It has been argued that the petitioner-claimants cannot draw any advantage from the earlier award assessing the value of acquired land at the rate of Rs.1336/p per sq. yard as the said award has been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence, it has become nonest in the eyes of law. It was contended that if the sale-deeds Exhibits A28 and A-30 are excluded from consideration zone then the average price would come to a much lower rate.
44. Learned counsel has further argued that the learned Tribunal has awarded sufficient rate of allotment in the instant petition and the Trust has spent huge amount in the development infrastructure.
45. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
46. The following three questions emerge for adjudication by this Court:-
I. Whether the `Phar land' was owned and possessed by the CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 23 petitioners-claimants, if so, whether they are entitled to compensation thereof?
II. Whether the assessment of market value @ Rs.580/- per square yard is correct, if not, what would be the market value on the date of notification?
III. Whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to determine the rate of allotment of the shops and fixed its price by travelling beyond the scope of Scheme?
Question No.1
47. As regards question no.1, the order of the learned Tribunal, dated 4.5.2002, Annexure P-14, passed after the passing of order of remand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been specifically mentioned that half of the `ganj area' in Karnal, including the area, in question, was purchased in the year 1854, in an auction from the Central Government, by one Pali Mal, Bansi Lal, Nawab Kutbudin and Gulab Sahib Khan, predecessors-in- interest of Sumer Chand @ Baru Mal. The original sale certificates are on record of the Tribunal. A reading of Exhibits A-60 and A-61 in regard to the lands in question shows that the land(s) were purchased in three lots measuring 2395 sq. yards, 2395 sq. yards and 140 sq. yards and the physical possession of the land in question was given to the aforesaid persons.
48. Further from the reading of site plan, Exhibit P1/1, it is made out that by virtue of sale deed, dated 15.12.1932, Exhibit P-1, Tara Chand and Asa Ram, the predecessors- in-interest of the petitioners, purchased the property from the aforementioned Sumer Chand @ Baru Mal. This fact is duly recorded in sale-deed, Exhibit P-1, and stands admitted in the case of CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 24 Kartara Singh as is evident from the perusal of Exhibits A3 and A4. The same position is reflected in the site plan, Exhibit P1/1, which shows that the `Phar' area is part of the property owned by the petitioner.
49. Further from reading of Exhibits A15 to A33, Exhibit A34, Exhibit A36 and Exhibit A46, it is made out that the area in question, i.e., the courtyard/phar land was given on lease by the petitioners to different persons. Gurbax Singh, RW/3, who was examined by the Trust, has admitted the fact that the `Phar' in front of the shop was in possession of the owners. It has also been admitted by him in the statement that he was a tenant in a shop owned by Tara Chand and had taken the same on rent just after partition of the country and that the rent note was written in the name of the firm Bodh Raj Gurbax Singh and that he remained as a tenant in the said shop till the framing of Scheme No.37 by the Improvement Trust, Karnal and that in lieu of the tenancy rights, the Improvement Trust Karnal, allotted him a shop.
50. In the circumstances, the Exhibits referred above and the statement of Gurbax Singh, RW/3 are very crucial to determine the question No.1. These documents are not disputed by the respondent. Both the documents have, thus, established the fact that the petitioners were owners in possession of the 'Phar' land and had further rented out the same on lease to various persons with proprietary rights.
51. From the statement of Dr. Ujjagar Singh, RW/7, Retired Medical Officer, Municipal Committee, Karnal, it emerges that 'tharra/phar' in the old Subzi Mandi were maintained by the owners, whereas the maintenance of the roads was carried out by the Municipal Committee. Though, this evidence was not accepted by the learned Tribunal but the CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 25 same is indicative of the fact that the phar area was under the occupation of the petitioners.
52. Further a Resolution, dated 29.9.1938, was passed by the Municipal Committee, Karnal, whereby a notice was ordered to be issued to the owners Asa Ram, Tara Chand, for construction of a drain (Nali) at their own expenses. In pursuance thereof, notice, Exhibit, RW5/X was effected on Lala Asa Ram for getting the drain dugged out pursuant to the said Resolution, which goes to establish the fact that the petitioners were owners in possession of the land in question. In the Site Plan attached with the notice Exhibit, RW5/X, pertaining to the record of Ram Parshad Vs. Improvement Trust, and in the site plan, Mark `B' also, the courtyard has been shown to be the property of owners.
53. As per the statement of Jit Singh, Head Draftsman of the Trust, he prepared the site plans, Exhibits A-1 to A-6. According to the statement of the then Trust Engineer, Shiv Charan Sharma, he signed those site plans. The perusal of all these site plans shows that the open courtyard (`Phar') in front of the shops is shown to be owned by the petitioners. Further from the site plan, Exhibit A-59, which is the Survey Plan prepared prior to the acquisition, it is clear that the `Phar' area in front of the built-up shops acquired for Scheme No.37 was not a part of the street/road. The above site plan clinches the issue in question, as the same was prepared by the Engineer of the Trust, prior to the acquisition. It has not been explained by the respondent/Trust as to how the open courtyard area lying in front of the acquired shops was not shown to be part of the street/road. If this area was not part of the street/road then the necessary conclusion would be that the area was part of the shops, owned by the petitioners. The CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 26 statements of other witnesses also go to prove the fact that the ownership of the phar land was with the petitioners.
54. In the absence of any evidence to show that the Municipal Committee ever collected 'Teh Bazari' from the users of the land in question, who are vegetables sellers and retailers, the ownership of the Committee is not proved. From the record, it is further made out that respondent- Trust did not take any plea in the written statement to establish the fact that the `Phar' area was a street. In the fact situation, when the petitioners had categorically asserted in paras 1 and 2 of the petition that they were owners of the acquired phar area, there is neither any specific denial to this fact by the Trust nor it was pleaded by the Trust that any part of the acquired phar area is being used as a thorough fair and was not owned by the petitioners.
55. In Mukand Ltd. v. Mukand Staff & Officers Association, 2004(2) RSJ 425, it has been observed as under:-
"According to Mr. Ashok H. Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-Company, there are no pleadings either on the issue of `community of interest' or on the issue of `estoppel' in the Statement of Claim filed by the respondent- Staff & Officers' Association before the Tribunal. The law, on this point, is well-settled in a catena of cases. This Court , in its recent judgment in the case of Bondar Singh & Ors. vs. Nihal Singh & Ors., (2003) 4 SCC 161 , held as under:
"It is settled law that in the absence of a plea no amount of evidence led in relation thereto can be looked into."
In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the findings rendered regarding `community of interest' or `estoppel' in the absence of pleadings by the Association, cannot at all be looked into.
CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 27 Jurisdiction and power of this Court to interfere with the award of the Tribunal".
56. Further respondent-Trust has failed to lead any evidence to establish the fact that the land in question was ever levelled, paved, metalled or repaired by the Municipal Committee from any public funds.
57. There is nothing on record to establish that the Municipal Committee resorted to the procedure prescribed under Section 180 of the Haryana Municipal Act, on the basis of which, it can be established that the land in dispute was declared to be a public street. In the absence of declaration under Section 180 of the Act, the area cannot acquire the character of the street. Section 180 of the Act is reproduced as under:-
180.Power to require reparis of streets and to declare such streets public:-
(1) (a) When the committee considers that in any street other than a public street, or in any part of such street within the municipality, it is necessary for the public health, convenience or safety, that any work should be done for the levelling, paving, metalling, flagging, channelling, draining, lighting or cleaning thereof, the municipal committee may by written notice require the owner or owners of such street or part thereof, to carry out such work in a manner and within a time to be specified in such notice.
(b) Should the owner refuse or should he fail to carry out the work within the time specified, the Committee may, by written notice require the CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 28 owners of the land or buildings, fronting, adjoining or abutting upon such street or part thereof to carry out the work in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the notice.
(2) If compliance with the terms of the notice issued under clause (b) of sub-section (1) is not effected within the time specified, the committee may, if it thinks fit, itself execute the work and may recovery under the provisions of section 95 the expenses incurred in doing so in such proportion as it may deem equitable from the owner of the street and the persons served with a notice under clause (b) of sub-section (1).
(3) After such work has been carried out by the persons served with a notice under clause (b) of sub-section (1) or as provided in sub-section (2) by the committee at the expense of such persons and the owner of the street, the street or part thereof, in which such work has been done, may, and on the requisition of the owner or owners of the major portion of the said street or part thereof, or on the requisition of a majority of the persons served with a notice under clause (b) of the sub-
section (1), it shall be declared by a public notice to be put up therein by the committee to be a public street and shall vest in the committee.
(4) A committee may at any time, by notice fixed up in any street or part thereof not maintainable by the Committee, give intimation of their intention to declare the same a public street, CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 29 and unless within one month next after such notice has been so put up, the owner or any one of several owners of such street or such part of a street lodge objection thereto at the municipal office, the municipal committee may, by notice in writing, put up in such street, or such part, declare the same to be a public street vested in the committee.
58. In the absence of compliance of mandatory prescribed procedure and/or absence of a notification in this regard, it cannot be said that open area could be deemed to be a public street. Section 180 can also be used to prove ownership of petitioners i.e. Notice Ex. RW5/X to dig out a drain.
59. A conjoint reading of all documents exhibited on record, oral evidence adduced by the parties and the categorical observations made by the Tribunal in para 4 of the impugned award would prove the fact that the `Phar' land is owned by the claimant/petitioners, which was purchased in the year 1932 by their predecessors-in-interest. The over-whelming evidence has remained uncontroverted. The fact of acquiring the land by Nawab Kutubudin and Gulab Sahib Khan in year 1854 from the Central Government is also established.
60. Accordingly, question No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners.
Question No.2
61. From the remand order, we infer that the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not look into this extent of the matter. As regards question No.2, it needs to be mentioned that as per the first award dated 21.1.1988 passed by the Tribunal, the value of the acquired land had been assessed at the rate CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 30 of 1336/- per sq. yard. The aforesaid valuation was carried out on the basis of average price of the sale transactions available on record as sale-deeds, i.e., A-13 and A-28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while remanding the matter did not adversely comment on the assessment of the market value and the order of the remand was on fact other than the assessment of the market value. No error is apparent in the assessment of the market value by the learned Tribunal. There is no substance in the argument of learned counsel for the respondent-Trust that sale transactions A-13 and A-28 had been entered into by Comrade Ram Pyara, the then member of the Legislative Assembly, by showing higher value as he had the knowledge of development scheme being floated in the said area. The parties made statements before the learned Tribunal that they do not want to lead any fresh evidence in this regard. Therefore, it is proved on record that no fresh evidence was led by the parties after the order of remand. In this fact situation, when there is nothing on record, which shows any decreasing trend of prices in the area under question coupled with the first award reached after having taken the average valuation of the sale deeds pertaining to the relevant period, we hold that the compensation @ Rs.580/- per square yard is not proper and is based on misreading of evidence led by the parties. The learned Tribunal has not recorded any positive finding that as to how the first award passed on the basis of average valuation was not a good award. In the circumstances, we find that the award passed in the first instance is based on instances of relevant sale considerations. This court has power to adjudicate and determine the market value of the acquired land and the matters incidental thereto in view of the judgment of Division Bench rendered in Hissar Improvement Trust vs. President, Tribunal CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 31 Improvement Trust, Hissar and othrs, 2005 (2) LACC 537. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under:-
".........it is apparent that when there is an arbitrary exercise of power or an error apparent on the face of record or any other error of law committed by a Tribunal, then this Court has the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to correct the aforesaid errors. It is well settled by now that when there is misreading of evidence, misapplication of law or ruling out of any evidence available on the record or when the order does not disclose the reasons i.e. the decision making process is not disclosed to the Court, then this Court always interferes and comes to the rescue of the aggrieved party. The learned Single Judge while evaluating the award of the Tribunal has gone into the details of the documents and the reasoning process adopted by the Tribunal and thereafter observed that the award of the Tribunal was arbitrary and that the belting system was not justified. We have also examined the award of the Tribunal. We entirely agree with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge. For the reasons we shall give in later part of the judgment, we entirely uphold the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge. Before parting with this order, we notice that the objection whatsoever with regard to jurisdiction of this Court for entertaining the petitions filed by the claimant-landowner under Articles 226 and 227 was never raised by the Improvement Trust before the learned Single Judge. It is only for the first time during the CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 32 pendency of the present Letters Patent Appeals that the aforesaid objection has been raised."
62. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not test the question of quantum of compensation on its merit. Accordingly, we quash the award dated 28.9.2004 (Annexure P-17) passed by the learned Tribunal and maintain the market value as held in award dated 20.1.1988 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Tribunal vide which the compensation for the excess acquired land (phar/tharra area) has been assessed at the rate of Rs.1336/- per sq. yard and solatium @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensations. In addition thereto, they will further get interest @ 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking of the possession of the property which was 24.5.1976 and for the subsequent period @ 15% per annum till the date of payment.
Question No.3
63. As regards question No.3, from the perusal of the Scheme it emerges that the substance of the Scheme was that the owners of the land are entitled to land in lieu of their acquired land and Rs.5,000/- per site as development charges. Beyond that, there is no stipulation of the charges in the Scheme except that the Committee was held entitled to claim the price of excess area if allotted. The allotment letters also refer to a demand of Rs.5,000/- only. As per the terms and conditions of Scheme No.37, this arrangement had been finalised inter se the parties. This has not been controverted by the respondent-Trust. In our considered opinion, the jurisdiction of Reference Court was only to the extent of determination the question of ownership of the phar land and the market value of the land acquired. Hence, the learned Tribunal travelled beyond the terms of CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 33 reference while assessing the price of allotment. As no excess area has been allotted to the petitioners, therefore, there is no clause that empowers the Trust to demand any price over and above Rs.5,000/- which was determined as development charges by the respondent-Trust. Even the respondent-Trust had admitted that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the allotment price. We are of the opinion that it is not relevant as to what use the area has been put to, in case the owner is deprived of the title and possession over the land, he is entitled to claim a fair compensation in lieu thereof.
64. Accordingly, with regard to issue No. 3, we set aside the order of Tribunal so far as it has determined the price of allotment at the rate of Rs.2325/- per sq. yard being beyond the scope of reference
65. In view of the above discussions, the award dated 28.9.2004 (Annexure P-17) is set aside and the petitioners are declared as owners of the tharra/phar area and are entitled to payment of compensation @ Rs.1336/- per sq. yard for the excess area acquired alongwith solatium and interest. The respondent-Trust is not entitled to claim any amount over and above Rs.5,000/- per plot/shop. allotted to the claimants. Consequently, the present writ petition and its connected petitions are allowed.
66. A copy of this judgment be placed on the files of connected cases.
(M.M.KUMAR) (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE JUDGE 14.6.2010 mk CWP NO.11146 OF 2007 & other connected matters 34 * Sr. CWP Year Title No. No. 1 3381 2005 Mukesh Kumar & ors. v. State of Haryana and others. 2 13782 2005 Uttam Chand & others v. State of Haryana and others. 3 3382 2005 Surinder Kumar & another v. State of Haryana and others 4 3383 2005 Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana and others 5 3421 2005 Lachhman Dass etc. V. State of Haryana etc. 6 11146 2007 Sushila Devi and others v.State of Haryana and others 7 18636 2005 Karnal Improvement Trust v. Sarla Devi Goel and others 8 12180 2007 Lilavati v. State of Haryana and others 9 18637 2005 Karnal Improvement Trust v. Chander Kiran Bansal and others 10 18638 2005 Karnal Improvement Trust v.Mool Chand and others 11 18639 2005 Karnal Improvement Trust v. Lilawati and others 12 18640 2005 Karnal Improvement Trust v. Deepak Saroop and others 13 18641 2005 Karnal Improvement Trust v. Vijay Kumar and others 14 18642 2005 Karnal Improvement Trust v. Rakesh Kumar and others 15 18643 2005 Karnal Improvement Trust v. Mukesh Kumar and others 16 18644 2005 Karnal Improvement Trust v. Naveen Kumar and others 17 18674 2005 Karnal Improvement Trust v.Mukesh Kumar and others 18 18675 2005 Karnal Improvement Trust v. Uttam Chand & others 19 18676 2005 Karnal Improvement Trust v.Brij Mohan and others 20 18677 2005 Karnal Improvement Trust v. Anil Kumar and others 21 18680 2005 Karnal Improvement Trust v. Mukesh Kumar and others 22 18646 2005 Karnal Improvement Trust v.Lachhman Dass and others 23 18647 2005 Karnal Improvement Trust v.Ghansham Saroop and others 24 18648 2005 Karnal Improvement Trust v. Gurcharan Singh and others 25 18649 2005 Karnal Improvement Trust v. Amar Lal and others 26 18650 2005 Karnal Improvement Trust v.Mukesh Kumar and others 27 18651 2005 Karnal Improvement Trust v.Rajnish Kumar and others 28 18652 2005 Karnal Improvement Trust v.Sushila Devi and others 29 18653 2005 Karnal Improvement Trust v.Mukesh Kumar and others 30 18654 2005 Karnal Improvement Trust v.Gian Chand and others (M.M.KUMAR) (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE JUDGE 14.6.2010 mk