Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manohar Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 13 October, 2011
Civil Revision No. 4746 of 2011 1
..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 4746 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: October 13th, 2011
Manohar Singh .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana,
for respondent No.1.
None for respondent No. 2
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
This is a revision petition brought by Manohar Singh under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 7.6.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Hisar, vide which the Execution Application filed under the provisions of Order 21 Rules 11, 34 and 35 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) by the petitioner through his general attorney, Brij Bhushan Jain, has been dismissed.
Land measuring 33 kanals 6 marlas of the petitioner, Manohar Singh, had been acquired for which award No. 5 dated Civil Revision No. 4746 of 2011 2 ..
9.6.1988 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Hisar. The petitioner filed a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of the compensation, which was decided by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar vide award dated 25.4.2008. The petitioner was not satisfied with the enhancement ordered by Additional District Jude, Hisar and so he filed Regular First Appeal No. 5554 of 2008 before this court, in which the compensation was further enhanced vide decision dated 26.4.2010. Now, the petitioner brought the Execution Application under the aforesaid provisions of Order 21 CPC and when the stage came for preparation of refund voucher, learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, vide order dated 7.6.2011, refused to hand over the refund voucher of the petitioner/Decree Holder to his general attorney. The application was, consequently, dismissed.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision petition has been filed.
I have heard Shri Rose Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kunal Garg, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1 and have gone through the record. None has appeared for respondent No.2 despite the fact that Shri Raman Gaur, Advocate, had represented respondent no.2 on the last date of hearing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the copy of General Power of Attorney executed by Manohar Singh in favour of Brij Bhushan Jain, which is Annexure P1 on the record. Civil Revision No. 4746 of 2011 3
..
Though, it is a general power of attorney authorizing Brij Bhushan Jain to act on behalf of Manohar Singh, yet the power to obtain compensation from Haryana Urban Development Authority in connection with the land of Manohar Singh has been specifically conferred on the attorney vide this document. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the refund voucher was to be issued in the name of Manohar Singh and not in the name of Brij Bhushan Jain and the amount of refund voucher was also to be credited in the account of the petitioner, Manohar Singh. He has submitted that learned Additional District Judge has not been justified in observing that it is a money matter and there is no ground for allowing the general attorney to withdraw the amount of the share of Manohar Singh. According to him, it is not a case of any fraud or misuse of money because the general power of attorney is a genuine document and the amount has to go straight to the bank account of Manohar Singh and cannot be misused by the attorney.
When the general power of attorney (Annexure P1) authorizes Brij Bhushan Jain to receive compensation from HUDA on behalf of Manohar Singh, there can be no reason for withholding the refund voucher from the general attorney, which would be prepared in the name of Manohar Singh, the amount of which would be credited in the account of Manohar Singh.
In these circumstances, the apprehension of learned Additional District Judge, Hisar of misappropriation or fraud on the Civil Revision No. 4746 of 2011 4 ..
part of the attorney is unfounded. The amount cannot be withheld by the court for the only reason that the general attorney of Manohar Singh has applied for the same. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 7.6.2011 is set aside and learned Additional District Jude, Hisar is directed to issue refund voucher in the name of Manohar Singh through his general attorney for being credited in the account of Manohar Singh, petitioner.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 13th, 2011 som