Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Executive Engineer vs . Paras Ram & Ors on 26 May, 2023
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
The Executive Engineer vs. Paras Ram & Ors RFA No. 370 of 2006 .
26.05.2023 Present: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Mr.Rahul Thakur and Ms. Avni Kochhar, Deputy Advocates General, for the appellant.
Mr. Hemant K. Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent Nos. 2(a) and 2(b).
CMP No. 5893 and 5898 of 2023 By way of instant applications, a prayer has been made on behalf of respondents No. 2(a) and 2(b) for release of award amount lying deposited in the Registry of this Court as well as correction of name of respondent No.2(b) Mr. Vikram Singh whose name has wrongly been mentioned as Neeraj Kumar in the memo of parties given in the award. No reply is intended to be filed to the instant applications by the non-applicants/appellants.
Having perused averments made in the applications which are duly supported by affidavit are annexed therewith, this Court finds that RFA No. 370 of 2006 having been filed by non-applicant/appellant stand finally decided vide judgment dated 23.03.2012, passed by Coordinate Bench in Bunch of RFA Nos.336 of 2006 alongwith other connected matters including RFA No. 370 of 2006. Since no appeal whatsoever has been filed in the aforesaid judgment in the appropriate court of law, the same has attained finality and as such there is no impediment in accepting the prayer made by the applicant. Though memo of parties given in the ::: Downloaded on - 29/05/2023 20:42:05 :::CIS award passed by court below reveals that name of original LRs .
of deceased respondent No.2 Piar Singh has been show as Dheeraj Kumar and Neeraj Kumar, whereas real name of LRs of respondent No. 2(b) is Neeraj Kumar, which fact is evident from the report given by the patwari concerned (Annexure A-2) annexed with the application. Patwari concerned has categorically reported/certified that after the death of Piar Singh while attesting/entering the mutation wrongly mention the name of Vikram Singh as Neeraj Kumar which was subsequently rectified in the revenue record. Since name of Vikram Singh is wrongly shown as Neeraj Kumar in the memo of parties stands corrected, as has been reported by the Patwari concerned, there appears to be no prejudice caused either by the parties, in case name of appellant-respondent No.2(b)reflected as Neeraj is ordered to be corrected as Vikram Singh. Ordered accordingly.
Consequently, in view of above, Registry of this court is directed to release the award amount in the shares of respondent Nos. 2(a) and 2(b) by remitting the same in their savings bank accounts, details whereof is given in para-6 of the application bearing CMP No.5893 of 2023, subject to verification.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 26th May, 2023 (himani) ::: Downloaded on - 29/05/2023 20:42:05 :::CIS