Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajender Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 15 September, 2022
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M)
and other connected cases -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M)
and other connected cases
Date of Order:15.09.2022.
Reserved on:07.09.2022
Rajender Singh and another
.Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners in CR-814-2020 and CR-1744-2020 Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate, for HSIIDC Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate, for the petitioners in CR-3286-2022 and for respondent in CR-1744-2020 Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner in CR-2138, 2139 and 2140 of 2016 Mr. P.K.Dwivedi, Advocate for the petitioner in CR-467-2017 and CR-468-2017 Mr. Suresh Ahlawat, Advocate, for the petitioners in CR-2159 of 2020 and for respondent in CR-1871, 1873 of 2021 Mr. G.S.Shahpuri, Advocate, for the petitioner in CR-1665-2022, CR-1549-2021 and CR-884-2021 and for the respondent in CR-3491-2021 for respondent no.1 in CR-633 of 2022 for respondent no.1(i)9ii), 2(i to iii) and 3 to 6 in CR-459-2022 Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harsh Vardhan Sherawat, AAG, Haryana and Mr. J.S.Jammu, AAG, Haryana Mr. Vandit Jain, Advocate for Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Advocate, for respondent no.1.
In CR-347 and 545 of 2021
1 of 31
::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 :::
C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M)
and other connected cases -2-
Mr. B.K.Bagri, Advocate, for respondents in CR-2869-2022 Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent no.1 in CR-2138 and 2873 of 2016 Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, Advocate and Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate for the respondents in CR-16789 of 2018 Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for respondent no.1.
In CR-462 of 2022 Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent no.1 in CR-3504 of 2021 and CR-1558-2022 Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate for the respondent in CR-424-2022, 793-2021, 425-2022 and 594-2021. Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP- 20911-22) Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Harsh Vardhan, AAG, Haryana ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. This judgment shall dispose of 115 civil revision petitions and a Civil Writ Petition (details whereof are at the foot of the judgment) filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC').
2. After having heard the learned counsels representing the respective parties, the following questions arise for adjudication:-
(1) Whether on the basis of a judgment of the Court enhancing the compensation of acquired land passed in the case(s) filed by a co-sharer with respect to his own share in undivided/joint land, the other co-sharer(s), who did not file any petition, can file an execution petition to claim the enhanced compensation without any 2 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 ::: C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M) and other connected cases -3-
enforceable award/judgment in his/their favour when the petition had been filed by the other co-sharers on their on behalf and not on the behalf of all co-sharers?
(2) Whether the orders passed by the Lok Adalats, on the basis of concession granted by the officials under the misconception of law, are binding, particularly in the absence of a conscious decision of the concerned Organization /Institution/ Corporate entity/ State Government/juristic person?
3. DISUCSSION ISSUE NO.1 3.1 On the one hand, the learned counsels representing the landowners while relying upon the following judgments A. Viswanatha Pillai vs. Special Tehsildar for Land Acquisition, (1991) 4 SCC 17, Surjit Singh and othes vs. State of Haryana and another , 2007 (1) R.C.R.(Civil) 352, Ram Chander and others vs. The State of Haryana and another, 2016 (4) Law Herald 3533, Smt. Parwati and another vs. The State of Haryana and another, 2009(5) R.C.R.(Civil) 572, Sombir and others vs. State of Haryana and others, (CWP-35666 of 2019, decided on 09.12.2019), Patiala Improvement Trust through its C hairman vs. S. Amar Singh and others, 2005(2) R.C.R.(civil) 332, Ramesh Singh (died) by LRs vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 4 SCC 469, and Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation vs. Randhir Singh and others, 2022 (2) R.C.R.(Civil) 520, contend that once the market value of the acquired land of the co-sharers has been enhanced by the Court, the remaining co-sharers 3 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 ::: C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M) and other connected cases -4- can file an execution petition without any judgment or decree in their favour. In substance, their main argument is that the State cannot discriminate with its subjects, particularly when they are identically situated in a case. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act') are required to be interpreted in a manner which ensure that all the land-losers get adequate, fair and reasonable compensation for the compulsory acquisition of their land.
3.2. Per contra, the learned Advocate General, Haryana, while referring to the provisions of Section 18 of the 1894 Act and Section 64 of the 2013 Act contends that the concept of the co-owners representing the other co-owners while filing a petition under Section 18 of the 1894 Act or Section 64 of the 2013 Act, as the case may be, is not envisaged in any of the Acts. While elaborating, he submits that any person interested in the compensation and who has not accepted the award of the Collector, is required to file a written application to the Collector in this regard. In the absence of a written application, such interested person shall not be entitled to object the correctness of the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'the LAC') except under Section 28A of the 1894 Act i.e only when there is an enhancement in the amount of market value of the acquired land by the Reference Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the RC'). For filing an application under Section 28A of the 1894 Act, the interested person shall apply within a period of 3 months from the date of judgment of the RC awarding the enhanced market value. The learned 4 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 ::: C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M) and other connected cases -5- Advocate General, Haryana, relies upon the various judgments passed by this Court in Piara Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (Civil Writ Petition No.23669 of 2021, decided on 07.12.2021), Shamsher Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and others (Civil Writ Petition No.15100 of 2021, decided on 10.08.2021) and State of Haryana vs. Jai Dev (Civil Revision No.2811 of 2000, decided on 24.08.2010). 3.3 At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the statutory scheme of the concerned provisions. Section 26 of the 1894 Act envisages that the Judge shall pass an award in writing while specifying the amount awarded under the first clause of sub-section (1) of Section 23 and also the respective amounts, if any, awarded under the various other clauses. Sub- Section(2) of Section 26 provides that every such award shall be deemed to be a decree of the Court in accordance with Section 2(2) & 2(9) of the CPC. Section 2(2) defines the expression "decree", whereas Section 2(9) defines the expression "judgment". Section 33 of the CPC mandates the preparation of decree after the judgment has been passed by the Court. The aforesaid relevant provisions are extracted hereunder:-
26. Forms of awards. -
(1) Every award under this part shall be in writing signed by the Judge, and shall specify the amount awarded under clause first of sub-section (1) of section 23, and also the amounts (if any) respectively awarded under each of the other clauses of the same subsection, together with the grounds of awarding each of the said amounts.
5 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 ::: C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M) and other connected cases -6- (2) Every such award shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of section 2. clause (2), and section 2, clause (9), respectively of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908."
Section 2(2), 2(9) and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,--
(1) XX XX XX XX (2) "decree" means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within section 144, but shall not include--
(a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or
(b) any order of dismissal for default.
Explanation.--A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly 6 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 ::: C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M) and other connected cases -7- preliminary and partly final;
(3). XX XX XX XX
(4) XX XX XX XX
(5) XX XX XX XX
(6) XX XX XX XX
(7) XX XX XX XX
(8) XX XX XX XX
(9) "judgment" means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order
33. Judgment and decree.--The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment, and on such judgment a decree shall follow."
3.4. It is evident on a careful reading of the aforesaid provisions, that a decree will follow the judgment passed by the Court. In the absence of a judgment, no decree can be passeds. Section 2(9) provides that judgment is a statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or an order. In substance, the concluding/ operative part of the judgment is made the part of the decree. As per part-II of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 that contains Section 36 to 74, the provisions have been made regarding the execution of the decree or in other words, for the enforcement of the decree. 3.5. Section 18 of the 1894 Act takes into ambit every person, who has not accepted the award announced by the LAC, to apply to the Collector for referring the matter to the Court for redetermination. It is specifically provided that any person interested who has already accepted the award shall not be entitled to apply to the Collector for referring the matter to the 7 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 ::: C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M) and other connected cases -8- Court for redetermination. A similar provision exists in the 2013 Act i.e. Section 64 of the 2013 Act. Section 18 of the 1894 Act and Section 64 of the 2013 Act are extracted hereunder:-
18. Reference to Court. -
(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made- (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.
64. Reference to Authority.-
(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, 8 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 ::: C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M) and other connected cases -9- require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested:
Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a reference to the appropriate Authority:
Provided further that where the Collector fails to make such reference within the period so specified, the applicant may apply to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made--
(a) person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 21, or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire:
9 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 ::: C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M) and other connected cases -10- Provided further that the Collector may entertain an application after the expiry of the said period, within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period specified in the first proviso."
3.6. It is evident that the concept of a co-owner acting on behalf of the remaining co-owners, is not provided in the Act specifically. There may be cases where the co-owner applies under Section 18 or 28-A of the 1894 Act on behalf of the remaining co-owners and the court, while taking into consideration the entire unpartitioned acquired land in the khewat, proceeds to decide the same. However, in the absence of specific application for referring the matter to the Court on behalf of the remaining co-sharers, an application filed by a co-owner(s) shall have to be treated to have been filed for his/their own benefit to the exclusion of other co-sharers. The landowners who failed to file application under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, have another opportunity to file application under Section 28A of the 1894 Act. Moreover, Section 28-A (1) of the 1894 Act provides for the limitation of a period of 3 months, from the date of the award passed by the RC, with no provision for the condonation of delay.
3.7. The Executing Court enforces the decree which has been prepared by the Court on the basis of the judgment passed. In absence of the decree in favour of the party, the execution petition is not maintainable. 3.8. Now the Bench proceeds to analyze the arguments made by the learned counsels representing the parties. 3.9. It may be noted here that in Shamshers Singh's case (supra), 10 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 ::: C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M) and other connected cases -11- this Court had an opportunity to examine the scheme of the Act with reference to the claim of a co-sharer for the enhanced market value. After considerately discussing the judgments passed in Ramesh Singh (dead) (sura), Irshad Ali and others vs. Hazi Abdul Sukhur Mazumdar and others (1997) 7 SCC 88, Smt. Ambey Devi vs. State of Bihar and another, (1996) 9 SCC 84, and State of Haryana vs. Jai Dev (CR 2811 of 2000), A Viswanatha Pillai and others vs. Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition No.IV and others AIR 1991 SC 1966, it was observed as under:-
"The 1894 Act is a complete Code. It grants two opportunities to the land owners to apply for re- determination of the market value of the acquired land after determination by the Land Acquisition Collector. Once the statute makes adequate provisions, the persons who have slept over their rights, cannot be permitted to avail the extraordinary writ remedy. Furthermore, the application under Section 18 can only be filed if the land owners have not accepted the award. In the present case, it is not clear as to whether the petitioners accepted the award of the Land Acquisition Collector or not. The writ remedy is not for the persons who are not vigilant. It is well settled that ignorance of law is no excuse. Besides, the writ petition suffers from colossal unexplained delay and latches. The acquisition was completed in January, 2004. The Regular First Appeals were decided by the High Court on 06.11.2015, whereas the writ petition has been filed in July, 2021. Thus, there is delay of 17 years. It may be noted here that in the context of the entitlement of the co-sharer, to the enhanced compensation, without seeking reference, either under Section 18 or 28A of the Act 1894, the Supreme Court has repelled the claim after examining the matter in the context of Article14 of the
11 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 ::: C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M) and other connected cases -12- Constitution of India in 'Ramesh Singh (dead) and others vs. State of Haryana and others' (1996) 4 SCC 469. Para 5 of the judgment reads as under:-
"5. It is argued by Shri Rohtagi that the petitioners being co-owners, they are entitled to compensation on a parity with other co-owners and the denial thereof is violative of Article 14. We find no force in the contention. Having laid independent claims and sought reference under Section 18, the right and remedy are only as provided under Section 18 or on an appeal under Section 54 but not by way of getting impleaded on the premise of a co-owner. Merely because one of the claimants had got higher compensation, others do not automatically get the same compensation unless the remedies, as provided under the Act, are availed of. One of the remedies under the Act is Section 28-A; if it is available according to law. Determination of higher compensation in favour of some claimants or socalled co-owners and denial thereof to other claimants is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The subject-matter having been regulated under the provisions of the Act, the right and remedy for higher compensation should be sought and had only under the Act. The principle of equality of Article 14 cannot be extended in that behalf."
Similarly, in 'Irshad Ali and others vs. Hazi Abdul Sukhur Mozumdar and others', (1997) 7 SCC 88, a co-sharer sought reference under Section 18 which was decided but he never filed an appeal, whereas the other co-owners filed an appeal and got enhancement. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such co-owner, who did not file an appeal, has waived his claim and hence, not entitled to 12 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 ::: C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M) and other connected cases -13- the enhanced compensation. Similarly, in 'Ambey Devi vs. State of Bihar and another' (1996) 9 SCC 84 a co- sharer in the land, without filing reference under Section 18, filed an appeal before the High Court. In that context, the Supreme Court held that his appeal was not maintainable unless he has sought reference under Section 18. Similarly, in State of Haryana vs. Jai Dev, CR 2811 of 2000 decided on 24.08.2010, the Court after examining the various judgments held that enhanced compensation, without seeking reference under Section 18 or 28A, cannot be paid.
It may be noted here that there is one judgment of Supreme Court in A. Viswanatha Pillai And Ors vs Special Tahsildar for Land 1991 AIR SC 1966. In this case, some co-sharers have sought reference on behalf of all the other co-sharers. In that context, the Supreme Court held that since some of the co-sharers can file a claim on behalf of others, therefore, the Court awarded the enhanced compensation. However, in this writ petition, the petitioners are claiming the enhanced compensation only on the basis of determination of other land owners. The petitioners claims that such action of the State is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the considered view of this Court, Article 14 cannot be invoked in such circumstances."
3.10. As already noticed, the maintainability of the execution petition is dependent upon the judgment of the Court. In the absence of a judgment, there cannot be any decree. In the absence of a decree, there cannot be any execution petition which is in the nature of enforcement or implementation of the relief granted in a judgment and decree. In a case of such a nature, co- sharer has no decree in his favour unless the other co-owner who applied for 13 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 ::: C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M) and other connected cases -14- the redetermination has specifically applied on behalf of the remaining co- sharers as well. As is evident, Section 18 of the 1894 Act mandates that a petition under Section 18 can be filed only by a person who has not accepted the award made by the Collector.
3.11 As already discussed in Shamsher Singh's case (supra), the 1894 Act grants two opportunities to the landowners to apply for redetermination of the market value of the acquired land after the LAC has offered to pay the amount. The provisions of the 2013 Act are quite similar to the 1894 Act. Section 64 of the 2013 Act again provides that any person interested in the award, who has not accepted the award may apply to the Collector for referring the matter to the Court for redetermination. Section 73 of the 2013 Act enables the authority (Reference Court) to reassess the market value of the acquired land in accordance with law. Even the provisions of the 2013 Act do not provide that once the amount has been assessed for a particular acquisition for certain co-owners, then the remaining co-sharers or other owners shall be entitled to claim the same amount on the principal of parity, without personally applying for the same. 3.12. It is evident from a careful reading of Section 18 as well as Section 28-A of the 1894 Act that these sections provide for the limitation period specified for filing the application for redetermination. Once the period of limitation has lapsed, there is no other provision for the condonation of delay because the Collector is not a Court and hence, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is not applicable in such cases. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Mohd. Hasnuddin vs. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 522.
14 of 31
::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 :::
C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M)
and other connected cases -15-
3.13. Moreover, Section 18 of the 1894 Act provides for application for reference to be filed by 'any person' interested in the amount. In other words, Section 18 talks of natural person or a juristic person. The expression "person interested" has been defined in Section 3(b) of the 1894 Act. Moreover, the Executing Court only enforces a decree i.e. it implements the judgment passed by the Court. A combined khata/khewat can have the separate parcels of land located on the various parts of the acquired land having the different market value. A particular parcel of land located near the main road, market, commercial, residential or institutional area would fetch more price when compared with the parcel of land which is located far away. It is not necessary that the entire joint/unpartitioned land would be in a compact block having uniform market value. By the very nature of jurisdiction of the Executing Court, it would be beyond the scope of the Executing Court to decide these questions, as it only gives effect to an order or judgment passed by the Court as it is. It does not decide questions that would effect the substance of the judgment. The concept of dividing the acquired land into the various belts is well known so as to distinguish the market value of the land located in various parts of the acquired land according to its potentiality. There is no universal practice that the entire acquired land shall be assessed uniformly.
3.14. In Patiala Improvement Trust (supra) the High Court followed A.Viswanatha Pillai. In fact, this judgment has been explained in Piara Singh's case (supra) in the following manner:-
"As regards judgment passed in Patiala Improvement Trust through its Chairman's case(supra), the Court 15 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 ::: C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M) and other connected cases -16- noted that in the aforesaid case the execution petition had been allowed by the Executing Court. The aforesaid order was challenged by filing a revision petition. The High Court came to conclusion that the Reference Court has already directed that the revised market rate in the peculiar circumstances of the case shall be universally applicable. In those facts, the court dismissed the revision petition.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the extracted portion of the judgments, have categorically laid down that a co-owner is not entitled to file an execution petition without seeking reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act."
3.15. Moreover, there is no concept of representative assessment of the market value of the acquired land unless the co-sharer seeks reference on behalf of the entire body of co-sharers as a representative. Both the Acts do not envisage that all the owners of the acquired land are entitled to the same amount of compensation irrespective of filing an application for redetermination. The Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 18 of the 1894 Act or Section 54 of the 1894 Act only assesses the market value on the basis of evidence led by the parties. In other words, the assessment by the court is on the basis of the evidence produced before it and there is no general declaration with respect to the market value of the acquired land. In such circumstances, enabling a co-owner to file an execution petition on behalf of the other co-owners when the former never filed an application under Section 18 of the 1894 Act is not envisaged in the Act. The judgment passed in A.Viswanatha Pillai(supra) has already been courteously explained in Shamsher Singh's case (supra). In Surjit Singh's case (surpa) the Court while relying upon A.Viswanatha Pillai (supra) held that a co-owner is entitled to file an appeal under Section 54 of the 1894 Act without filing a reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act.
16 of 31
::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 :::
C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M)
and other connected cases -17-
Similarly, in Smt. Parwati and another(supra), the Court has relied upon the view taken in A.Viswanatha Pillai (supra) without noticing the judgments passed in Ramesh Singh(supra) and Irshad Ali (supra). Similarly, in Sombir and others (supra), the attention of the court was not drawn to the various other judgments passed by the Supreme Court. In fact, in this case, only a passing observation was made and the aforesaid point was not the issue involved in the case.
"As regards judgment passed in Patiala Improvement Trust through its Chairman's case (supra), the Court noted that in the aforesaid case the execution petition had been allowed by the Executing Court. The aforesaid order was challenged by filing a revision petition. The High Court came to conclusion that the Reference Court has already directed that the revised market rate in the peculiar circumstances of the case shall be universally applicable. In those facts, the court dismissed the revision petition."
3.16. In Punjab Small Industries and support corporation (surpa), the Coordinate bench relied upon the A.Viswanatha Pillai (supra) and Patiala Improvement Trust (supra).
3.17. It may be noted here that in State of Haryana vs. Jai Dev (supra), a coordinate bench, after examining the case law on the point, held that the judgment passed in A.Viswanatha Pillai is in the facts of that case and the view taken in A.Viswanatha Pillai cannot be uniformly applied. In another judgment passed in Sham Bihari and others vs. State of Haryana and another 2011 (1) PLR 532, the Bench after discussing the various judgments including the judgment in Ajjam Linganna vs. Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad (Civil Appeal No.7175-
17 of 31
::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 :::
C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M)
and other connected cases -18-
7179 of 2022, decided on 28.11.2000), has held as under:-
"Having perused judgments passed by the Apex Court as referred herein above, I am of the view that
i) if a reference is made by one of the co-owners specifically mentioning therein that reference is being made on behalf of all, then other co-owners are also entitled for enhanced compensation.
ii) Even if reference is not made specifically on behalf of all the co-owners, however, if reference contained such material like in the case of A. Viswanatha Pillai (supra) that applicant and his co-owners brothers are feeling dis-satisfied from the award then Court can infer that reference was made on behalf of all the co-owners and other co-
owners shall also be entitled for the enhanced compensation.
iii) However, if one of the co-owner has made reference on his own behalf without taking any pleading therein that he and other co-owners are feeling dis-satisfied from the award and there is no material before the Court to find out that reference was made on behalf of other co-owners also then other co-owners who had not made reference are not entitled for the enhanced compensation in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Ambey Devi (supra).
iv) This Court is also of the view that if reference is made solely on behalf of one co-owner, other co- owners cannot seek impleadment in his reference or in an appeal arising out of the reference, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Ambey Devi (supra), as well as, in the matter of Ajjam Linganna (supra).
18 of 31
::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 :::
C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M)
and other connected cases -19-
v) However, if co-owner wants to seek enhanced compensation can take recourse of Section 28-A of the Act in accordance with law, if other ingredient of Section 28-A are available."
3.18. As already discussed in Shamsher Singh's case (supra), the Act only provides for two opportunities to the landowners to apply for redetermination. The 1894 Act as well as 2013 Act are complete Code in themselves and are required to be interpreted accordingly by the Court. 3.19. Additionally, both the Acts i.e. the 1894 Act and the 2013 Act do not provide for filing of the execution petitions in absence of an enforceable judgment and decree, in favour of the co-sharer seeking the enhanced amount. In such cases, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the execution of the decree shall be applicable. The Code of Civil Procedure also does not provide for the maintainability of execution petition of a decree in the absence of a judgment. A person, who is not a party to the judgment, can file an execution petition only if he is a legal representative/assignee of the decree holder. Thus, a execution petition cannot be filed straightaway in the absence of an enforceable decree in the favour of party that applies for the execution except under the circumstances hereinbefore mentioned.
3.20. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered view that the argument of the learned counsel representing the landowners that not allowing the execution by other co-sharers amounts to hostile discrimination is not made out. Thus, the co-owner who failed to apply under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, now in absence of a judgment or decree in his/their favour, cannot apply to the Executing Court for the 19 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 ::: C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M) and other connected cases -20- enforcement of the decree qua him/them which was passed only qua his/their co-sharer who specifically applied for reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in negative. ISSUE NO.2.
3.21. The learned counsel representing the parties have brought to the notice of the Bench that in certain cases the Lok Adalat, on the basis of concession given by the officials of Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Nigam or Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited(HSIIDC) or State officials have passed the awards. The learned counsel representing the respondent contends that the aforesaid order has become final and it cannot be interfered with, at this stage. 3.22. The awards passed by the Lok Adalats are given the statutory recognition with the basic aim of settling the disputes amicably, outside the Court, by mutual consent. However, subsequently, power of adjudicating certain disputes was also conferred on the Permanent Lok Adalats. In these cases, the awards are passed by the Lok Adalat and not the Permanent Lok Adalat. The argument of the learned counsel representing the landowners is required to be analyzed from three different perspectives. 3.23. First of all, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat only on filing of an application by the co-owner who had no judgment/award or order in his favour which could have been enforced by filing the execution petition in his favour. Thus, the filing of the execution petition itself was not maintainable. So any subsequent settlement which resulted in award of the 20 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 ::: C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M) and other connected cases -21- Lok Adalat is non-est in the eyes of law.
3.24. Secondly, the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Nigam is a creation of statute, namely, the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. It is a body corporate. As per Section 3(3), the authority shall consist of a Chairman, a Vice Chairman, a Chief Administrator and such members not exceeding 12 but not less than 6. In a body corporate, there has to be a proper delegation of the powers of the authority in order to enter into a settlement. An official, without the proper delegation of power, cannot enter into a valid settlement. The attention of the court has not been drawn to any such delegation of power. The Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited(HSIIDC) is also a body corporate. An employee of the body corporate, without proper delegation of power, cannot bind the body corporate.
3.25. Moreover, the statements given while conceding the claim are based on the misconception of law. The concession given on such misconception does not necessarily lead to estoppel, acquiescence or waiver. The landowners have not changed their position or taken any steps in furtherance of the concession given by the officials. 3.26. Moreover, acknowledging the claim of one party does not necessarily lead to a compromise or settlement. This aspect has been examined by the Supreme Court in para 7 of the State of Punjab and others vs. Phulan Rani and another, (2004) 7 SCC 555, which is extracted as under:-
"7. The specific language used in sub-section (3) of Section 20 makes it clear that the Lok Adalat can dispose of a matter by way of a compromise or settlement between the parties. Two crucial terms in sub-sections 21 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 ::: C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M) and other connected cases -22- (3) and (5) of Section 20 are "compromise" and "settlement". The former expression means settlement of differences by mutual concessions. It is an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims by reciprocal modification of demands. As per Termes de la Ley, "compromise is a mutual promise of two or more parties that are at controversy. As per Bouvier it is "an agreement between two or more persons, who, to avoid a law suit, amicably settle their differences, on such terms as they can agree upon". The word "compromise" implies some element of accommodation on each side. It is not apt to describe total surrender. A compromise is always bilateral and means mutual adjustment. "Settlement" is termination of legal proceedings by mutual consent. The case at hand did not involve compromise or settlement and could not have been disposed of by Lok Adalat. If no compromise or settlement is or could be arrived at, no order can be passed by the Lok Adalat. Therefore, the disposal of the Writ Petition No. 13555/1994 filed by respondent No.1 is clearly impermissible."
3.27 Thus, the Issue No.2 is also answered in negative.
4. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, it is declared that the award, if any, passed by Lok Adalat on the Ist issue is held to be without jurisdiction and the settlement, if any, arrived at due to the misconception/misinterpretation of the law, is held to be not binding.
5. Consequently, both the questions are answered in negative and accordingly in favour of HSVP, HSIIDC or the State of Haryana. With these observations, all the revision petitions/writ petition are disposed of.
6. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
15th September, 2022 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
22 of 31
::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 :::
C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M)
and other connected cases -23-
Sr. Case Number Petitioner Respondent
No.
1. CWP-20911- SURENDER AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA
2022 AND OTHERS
2. CR-394-2022 HARYANA STATE OM NARAIN AND ORS
INDUSTRIAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT CORP.
LTD.
3. CR-884-2021 BRAHAMJIT DECEASED STATE OF HARYANA
THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS
ANJANA AND ORS
4. CR-1548-2021 SMT.RATNESH AND STATE OF HARYANA
OTHER AND OTHERS
5. CR-1570-2021 MAHIPAL SINGH (NOW STATE OF HARYANA
DECEASED) REPRESENTED AND OTHERS
THR HIS LRS
6. CR-1724-2021 HARYANA STATE KAMLESH AND
INDUSTRIAL AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
7. CR-1549-2021 MAHIPAL SINGH (NOW STATE OF HARYANA
DECEASED) THR HIS LRS AND OTHERS
8. CR-3286-2022 HARYANA URBAN LEELAWATI
DEVELOPMENT THROUGH LRS AND
AUTHORITY OTHERS
9. CR-2906-2022 STATE OF PUNJAB AND BIR SINGH (BAWA
ANOTHER BIR SINGH )
DECEASED) THR LRS
AND OTHERS
10. CR-2869-2022 HARYANA STATE KESHO RAM AND
INDUSTRIAL AND ORS.
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT CORP.
LTD.
11. CR-1934-2022 HARYANA STATE SMT. PHOOL KAUR
INDUSTRIAL AND AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
12. CR-39-2017 HSIIDC LTD. SARBATI & ORS
13. CR-336-2019 HARYANA INDUSTRIAL PARKASH AND
AND INFRASTRUCTURE OTHERS
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
14. CR-3734-2017 HARYANA STATE RAMPHAL AND ORS.
INDUSTRIAL &
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVEL.
CORP. LTD.
15. CR-44-2017 HSIIDC LTD. BABU LAL & ORS
16. CR-8770-2016 HSIIDC LTD. PHOOLWATI & ORS
17. CR-467-2017 HARYANA STATE SAJJAN BAI @ SAJNA
INDUSTRIAL & AND ORS.
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
23 of 31
::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 :::
C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M)
and other connected cases -24-
CORPORATION LTD.
18. CR-879-2017 HSIIDC LTD. SHER SINGH & ORS
19. CR-8771-2016 HSIIDC LTD. SHANTI & ORS
20. CR-47-2017 HSIIDC LTD. DHARAMPAL & ORS
21. CR-487-2017 HARYANA STATE CHANDER SINGH
INDUSTRIAL & ALIAS CHANDER AND
INFRASTRUCTURE ORS.
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.
22. CR-16792-2018 HARYANA STATE ISHWAR SINGH & ORS
INDUSTRIAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEV
CORP LTD
23. CR-337-2019 HARYANA INDUSTRIAL ASHOK KUMAR AND
AND INFRASTRUCTURE OTHERS
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
24. CR-16793-2018 HARYANA STATE NEETIKA & ORS
INDUSTRIAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEV
CORP LTD
25. CR-340-2019 HARYANA INDUSTRIAL MAKHAN SINGH
AND INFRASTRUCTURE DECEASED THR LRS
DEVELOPMENT AND ORS
CORPORATION LTD
26. CR-341-2019 HARYANA INDUSTRIAL MAN SINGH AND ORS
AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
27. CR-16789-2018 HARYANA INDUSTRIAL JAI SINGH DECEASED
AND INFRASTRUCTURE THR LRS & ORS
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
28. CR-346-2019 HARYANA STATE KANWAR SINGH AND
INDUSTRIAL AND ORS
INFRASTRUCTURE DEV
CORP LTD
29. CR-16790-2018 HARYANA INDUSTRIAL LAXMI NARAIN &
AND INFRASTRUCTURE ORS
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
30. CR-3055-2016 HARYANA STATE JOGINDER SINGH &
INDUSTRIAL & ORS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
31. CR-3056-2016 HARYANA STATE MAHENDER SINGH &
INDUSTRIAL & ORS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
32. CR-2873-2016 HARYANA STATE AJIT SINGH AND ORS
INDUSTRIAL &
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
33. CR-2872-2016 HARYANA STATE MANOHAR LAL AND
INDUSTRIAL & ORS
24 of 31
::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 :::
C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M)
and other connected cases -25-
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
34. CR-2138-2016 HARYANA STATE RAMESHAR & ORS
INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT CORP LTD
PANCHKULA
35. CR-2139-2016 HARYANA STATE PIRTHI & ORS
INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT CORP LTD
PANCHKULA
36. CR-2140-2016 HARYANA STATE SMT.KANTA & ORS
INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
PANCHKULA
37. CR-7455-2017 HARYANA STATE DALIP SINGH AND
INDUSTRIAL & ORS DECEASED
INFRASTRUCTURE THOUGH HIS LRS
DEVELOPMENT CORP LTD
38. CR-7481-2017 HARYANA STATE MAKHANSINGH
INDUSTRIAL AND DECEASED THRO LRS
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ORS
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
39. CR-7459-2017 HARYANA STATE KANWAR SINGH &
INDUSTRIAL & ORS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT CORP LTD
40. CR-6827-2017 HARYANA STATE SAVITA AND ORS.
INDUSTRIAL &
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.
41. CR-7506-2017 HSIIDC LTD. MAN SINGH AND ORS
42. CR-7458-2017 HARYANA STATE SHER BAHADUR AND
INDUSTRIAL & ORS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT CORP LTD
43. CR-7497-2017 HSIIDC LTD DEV KARAN AND ORS
44. CR-7461-2017 HARYANA STATE UMESH KUMAR AND
INDUSTRIAL & ORS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT CORP LTD
45. CR-5918-2019 THE HARYANA STATE JASWANT SINGH AND
INDUSTRIAL AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
46. CR-814-2020 RAJENDER SINGH AND STATE OF HARYANA
ANOTHER AND OTHERS
47. CR-1744-2020 SMT.LEELAWATI (NOW THE STATE OF
DECEASED) THROUGH HARYANA THROUGH
HER LRS ITS COLLECTOR AND
OTHERS
48. CR-6239-2019 THE HARYANA STATE HARGUM BANI
INDUSTRIAL AND PANNU AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
25 of 31
::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 :::
C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M)
and other connected cases -26-
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
49. CR-6143-2019 THE HARYANA STATE RAVINDER PANNU
INDUSTRIAL AND AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
50. CR-6127-2019 HARYANA STATE CHARANJIT SINGH
INDUSTRIAL AND AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
COPORATION LIMITED
51. CR-6141-2019 HARYANA STATE HARJIT SINGH AND
INDUSTRIAL AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
52. CR-6123-2019 HARYANA STATE POONAM SINGH AND
INDUSTRIAL AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
COPORATION LIMITED
53. CR-6206-2019 HARYANA STATE SMT. AMAR PANNU @
INDUSTRIAL AND AMAR KAUR
INFRASTRUCTURE (DECEASED)
DEVELOPMENT THROUGH LR AND
CORPORATION LIMITED ORS
54. CR-6238-2019 THE HARYANA STATE VIJAY PARTAP
INDUSTRIAL AND PANNU AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
55. CR-7821-2016 HSIIDC LTD. SUNIL KUMAR AND
ORS
56. CR-62-2017 HSIIDC LTD. MOTI RAM & ORS
57. CR-274-2021 HARYANA STATE MAHIPAL SINGH AND
INDUSTRIAL AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
58. CR-572-2021 HARYANA STATE GURVINDER SINGH
INDUSTRIAL AND AND OTHERS
INFRSTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
59. CR-507-2021 HARYANA STATE VIDYAWATI AND ORS
INDUSTRIAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
60. CR-793-2021 HARYANA STATE GAURAV CHUGH
INDUSTRIAL AND AND ORS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
61. CR-637-2021 HARYANA STATE ISHWAR AND ORS
INDUSTRIAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
26 of 31
::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 :::
C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M)
and other connected cases -27-
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
62. CR-376-2021 HARYANA STATE MAHENDER SINGH
INDUSTRIAL AND AND ORS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
63. CR-708-2021 HARYANA STATE SUNITA GUPTA AND
INDUSTRIAL AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
64. CR-545-2021 HARYANA STATE V/S ROHTASH AND
INDUSTRIAL AND ORS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
65. CR-851-2021 HARYANA STATE JASWANT DECEASED
INDUSTRIAL AND THROUGH LRS AND
INFRASTRUCTURE ORS
DEVLOPMENT
CRPORATION LIMITED
66. 66. CR-1675- HARYANA STATE JOGINDER AND
2021 INDUSTRIAL AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
67. CR-1676-2021 HARYANA STATE RAMPHAL AND
INDUSTRIAL AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCUTRE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
68. CR-1677-2021 HARYANA STATE RAJPAL AND ORS.
INDUSTRIAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
69. CR-391-2021 HSIIDC LTD. RAMNATH AND ORS
70. CR-665-2021 HARYANA STATE GURVINDER SINGH
INDUSTRIAL AND AND ORS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
71. CR-2159-2020 RUGHNATH (SINCE STATE OF HARYANA
DECEASED) THROUGH HIS AND OTHERS
L.R AND OTHERS
72. CR-347-2021 HARYANA STATE LAXMAN AND ORS
INDUSTRIAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
73. CR-594-2021 HARYANA STATE ASHOK KUMAR @
INDUSTRIAL AND ASHOK KUMAR
INFRASTRUCTURE MITTAL AND OTHERS
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
74. CR-238-2021 HARYANA STATE MAHIPAL SINGH AND
INDUSTRIAL AND OTHERS
27 of 31
::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 :::
C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M)
and other connected cases -28-
INFRASTRUCTUE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
75. CR-376-2022 HARYANA STATE RAJENDER SINGH
INDUSTRIAL AND AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
76. CR-117-2022 HARYANA STATE RAJENDER SINGH
INDUSTRIAL AND OTHERS
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
77. CR-3491-2021 HSIIDC LTD BIRENDER SINGH
DECEASED THROUGH
LRS AND OTHERS
78. CR-1874-2021 HARYANA STATE ANUP SHARMA AND
INDUSTRIAL AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE DEV.
CORP. LTD
79. CR-1873-2021 HARYANA STATE SARJEET SINGH
INDUSTRIAL AND SINCE DECEASED
INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH LRS AND
DEVELOPMENT ORS
CORPORATION LTD.
80. CR-1399-2022 HARYANA STATE CHAND KAUR AND
INDUSTRIAL AND ORS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
81. CR-3547-2021 HARYANA STATE SURJIT SINGH AND
INDUSTRIAL AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
82. CR-2576-2021 HARYANA STATE NARAIN SINGH AND
INDUSTRIAL AND ORS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
COPORATION LIMITED
83. CR-639-2022 HARYANA STATE MAWASI DECEASED
INDUSTRIAL AND THROUGH LRS AND
INFRASTRUCTURE ORS
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.
84. CR-1445-2022 HARYANA STATE SURENDER KUMAR
INDUSTRIAL AND AND ANR
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
85. CR-3489-2021 HARYANA STATE SUMER SHAH @
INDUSTRIAL AND MANGTU AND ORS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPROATION LTD.
86. CR-1801-2021 HARYANA STATE SMT.RAMGIRI AND
INDUSTRIAL AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
28 of 31
::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 :::
C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M)
and other connected cases -29-
CORPORATION LIMITED
87. CR-411-2022 KRISHNA NAND AND STATE OF HARYANA
OTHERS AND ORS
88. CR-1863-2021 HARYANA STATE VARINDER SINGH
INDUSTRIAL AND AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
89. CR-2158-2021 HARYANA STATE GURVINDER SINGH
INDUSTRIAL AND AND ORS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORORATION LTD.
90. CR-1857-2021 HARYANA STATE SURAJ MAL AND ORS
INDUSTRIAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.
91. CR-403-2022 HARYANA STATE BRAHMJIT DECEASED
INDUSTRIAL AND THROUGH LRS AND
INFRASTRUCTURE ORS.
DEVELOPMENT CORP.
LTD.
92. CR-452-2022 HSIIDC LIMITED MANDEEP SINGH
AND OTHERS
93. CR-867-2022 HARYANA STATE SMT.MEHMA DEVI
INDUSTRIAL AND AND ORS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.
94. CR-473-2022 STATE OF HARYANA AND SMT.SHYAMWATI
OTHERS AND ANOTHER
95. CR-1401-2022 HARYANA STATE TEJ RAM AND
INDUSTRIAL AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
96. CR-1395-2022 HSIIDC LTD. LAKHMI CHAND
DECEASED THROUGH
LRS AND ORS
97. CR-391-2022 HARYANA STATE VIJAY SINGH AND
INDUSTRIAL AND ORS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT CORP.
LTD.
98. CR-1555-2022 HARYANA STATE RAM CHANDER AND
INDUSTRIAL AND DEV. OTHERS
CORP. LTD.
99. CR-1558-2022 HARYANA STATE ASHWANI KUMAR
INDUSTRIAL AND AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT CORP.
LTD.
100. CR-3505-2021 HARYANA STATE SMT.SARTI AND
INDUSTRIAL AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
29 of 31
::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 :::
C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M)
and other connected cases -30-
101. CR-462-2022 HSIIDC LIMITED SMT.CHANDA AND
OTHERS
102. CR-633-2022 HARYANA STATE TEJRAM AND OTHERS
INDUSTRIAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEV.
CORP. LTD.
103. CR-1871-2021 HARYANA STATE RUGHNATH AND
INDUSTRIAL AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE DEV.
CORP. LTD
104. CR-1385-2022 HARYANA STATE KRISHNA NAND AND
INDUSTRIAL AND ORS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
105. CR-1818-2021 HARYANA STATE SMT.SAVITA AND
INDUSTRIAL AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
106. CR-459-2022 HSIIDC LIMITED RAM SINGH
DECEASED THROUGH
LRS AND OTHERS
107. CR-425-2022 HARYANA STATE TARA CHAND SAINI
INDUSTRIAL AND AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
108. CR-3504-2021 HARYANA STATE DHARAM SINGH AND
INDUSTRIAL AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
109. CR-400-2022 HARYANA STATE DEEPAK AND ORS
INDUSTRIAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT CORP.
LTD. V/S
110. CR-1393-2022 HARYANA STATE SMT.RATNESH AND
INDUSTRIAL AND ORS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
ORPORATION LTD.
111. CR-424-2022 HARYANA STATE ROSHAN LAL AND
INDUSTRIAL AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
112. CR-635-2022 HARYANA STATE SMT.BIMLA DEVI
INDUSTRIAL AND AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
113. CR-1852-2021 HARYANA STATE JANGSHER SINGH
INDUSTRIAL AND ALIAS SHERJANG
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ORS
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
30 of 31
::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 :::
C.R. No.814 of 2020(O&M)
and other connected cases -31-
114. CR-1808-2021 HARYANA STATE JASWANT KAUR AND
INDUSTRIAL AND ORS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
115. CR-794-2021 HARYANA STATE BIMAL PREET SINGH
INDUSJTRIAL AND AND OTHERS
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
V/S
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
JUDGE
31 of 31
::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2022 20:42:10 :::