Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak ... vs Smt. Indra Puri Wife Of Shri Atma Singh ... on 6 November, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No.1539 of 1994 (O&M)
Date of decision:06.11.2012.
Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar, through its
General Power of Attorney S. Gurcharan Singh Bedi, Assistant
Secretary, Kothi No.30, Sector 5-A, Chandigarh.
...Appellant
versus
Smt. Indra Puri wife of Shri Atma Singh alias Atma Ram, resident
of 01-Sirhind Road, Patiala, and others.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate,
for the appellant.
None for respondent No.1.
Mr.Amit Singh Sethi, Additional Advocate General,
Punjab, for respondent No.2.
None for respondent No.3.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.
----
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. In a reference under Section 30 for determination of respective entitlement of rival contenders of the property which was acquired by the Government for beautification of the complex around the Golden Temple, the Court had assessed the entitlement to RFA No.1539 of 1994 (O&M) -2- the original allottee of the land by the Improvement Trust. The rival contention had been taken up by SGPC relying on an agreement with the original allottee Indra Puri and the subsequent payments of installments to the Improvement Trust through cheque No.114701 and 114703 totaling ` 10,719/- as the amount paid by SGPC to the Trust. Subsequent to the agreement with the original allottee, SGPC had obtained sewerage and electricity connections and was actually in possession of the property. The petitioner would contend that after the payment of installments, before a sale deed was made in favour of SGPC by the Improvement Trust, the property came to be acquired to the Government and therefore the sale deed has not been executed. The Reference Court while assessing the issue of apportionment found that since the original allotment had been made in the name of Indra Puri, the first respondent herein, the compensation should also be paid in her name. The Court rejected the plea of SGPC on the ground that there existed no sale deed in its name.
2. I find the reasoning of the Reference Court to be erroneous. If the Court was holding that the appellant had not been favoured with the sale deed by the Improvement Trust, the same logic must have been applied also to the first respondent Indra Puri, for, she has also no sale deed in her favour. I find a right to allotment which was equitable in the sense of securing a right to RFA No.1539 of 1994 (O&M) -3- obtain a conveyance after the payment of all installments had been transferred by her to SGPC on the basis of which subsequent installments had been paid by SGPC to the Trust and the possession had also been taken over by them. The fact of possession by SGPC in respect of the property acquired is not even in dispute. It is immaterial that there existed no sale deed. Equitable right of obtaining the sale by itself was sufficient at the stage of consideration for apportionment of compensation payable to one of the rival contenders. In this case, the payment of installments, the mutation of sewerage and electricity connections and the actual possession of property were sufficient indicia of proof of the SGPC's entitlement to the amount determined. The award passed by the Reference Court is not tenable in law and set aside. The amount of compensation shall be payable only to SGPC, the appellant herein.
3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 06.11.2012 sanjeev