Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Another vs Hardev Kaur And Others on 17 March, 2009
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
Civil Revision No. 1401 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 1401 of 2009
Date of decision:- 17.03.2009.
Union of India and another ...Petitioners
Versus
Hardev Kaur and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. S.K. Sharma, Central Government Standing Counsel for the petitioners.
JASWANT SINGH J.
Petitioner-Union of India and its official-Judgment Debtor by filing the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have prayed for setting aside the orders dated 19.1.2008 passed by learned Executing Court at Bhatinda, whereby the parties to the execution have been directed to file fresh calculations and orders dated 25.9.2008 dismissing the review application moved by petitioners-Judgment Debtors.
In brief, the facts are that 86 Bighas and 16 Biswas of land belonging to Gurbachan Singh (since deceased and respondents No.1 to 3 impleaded as his legal representatives) was acquired for establishing military contonment at Bhatinda on 20.1.1975. Learned Collector passed the Award dated 06.3.1975 and the learned Additional District, Bhatinda in arbitration proceedings vide his order dated 11.10.1983 fixed the land in Civil Revision No. 1401 of 2009 -2- three belts and the rate of Rs.16.80 paisa per square yard was prescribed for the first belt, rate of Rs. 16/- per square yard was fixed for the second belt and rate of Rs.8.15 paisa per square yard was fixed for the third belt. Since Gurbachan Singh had raised a dispute regarding the location of his land, the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda vide his order dated 25.3.1988, passed in pursuance to the order dated 20.7.1982 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, held that the land of Gurbachan Singh fell within the 500 meters radius from Bathinda-Bibiwala road and therefore entitled to compensation @ Rs.6.18 per square yard in respect of his land acquired.
During the pendency of the execution proceedings, filed by the decree-holder-Gurbachan Singh, he died and his legal representatives were impleaded.
The learned Executing Court vide its impugned order dated 19.1.2008 firstly decided that the respondents-decree-holders were entitled to interest on solatium after the year 2001 as per the ratio of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India reported in 2006 (2) ACC 501; secondly it was found that the entire amount of due compensation was not released/disbursed to the decree- holder-Gurbachan Singh (or his legal representatives) as some part had been disbursed to other decree-holders namely Gurdev Singh, Gurlabh Singh and Ishar Singh and there was a balance of Rs.12,90,973.90/- still to be paid to the present respondents. In view of these facts, learned Executing Court held that the execution has not been satisfied and therefore, the parties were directed to file their respective fresh calculations.
The petitioners-Judgment Debtors moved an application dated 29.2.2008 before the Executing Court for review of the order dated Civil Revision No. 1401 of 2009 -3- 19.1.2008, the same was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda vide his order dated 25.9.2008 being without any merit besides being time barred. Hence, the present revision petition.
The solitary argument being raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the balance amount of due compensation i.e. Rs.12,90,973.90/- to be paid to the respondents-decree holders , had been deposited by the petitioner-Judgment Debtors, which was wrongly disbursed to other decree-holders namely Gurdev Singh, Gurlabh Singh and Ishar Singh and therefore, the petitioners-Judgment Debtors were not liable to pay any interest on the balance amount of compensation due to the decree-holders as the same had been deposited in Court within time. It was further contended that the learned Executing Court has not given any finding or calculations as to whether the amount wrongly disbursed to the other decree-holders instead of Gurbachan Singh through his L.Rs is recoverable from the aforesaid decree-holders, namely, Gurdev Singh, Gurlabh Singh and Ishar Singh.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the impugned orders, I find no merit in the present revision petition.
It is an admitted fact that the entire amount of compensation, due to Gurbachan Singh/his L.Rs had not been disbursed to them and a sum of Rs. 12,90,973.90/- remained outstanding. It is also not disbuted that the said amount was wrongly disbursed to the other decree-holders namely Gurdev Singh, Gurlabh Singh and Ishar Singh because they had not approached the Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court for enhancing their compensation by filing any appeal in lieu of their acquired land. The learned Executing Court vide its impugned order has clearly held Civil Revision No. 1401 of 2009 -4- that the amount of Rs.12,90,973.90/- was paid to the other decree-holders at the instance of the Judgment Debtors. In the concluding portion, the learned Executing Court has held :-
"As per certified copy of order dated 21.11.88 the amount of Rs.12,90,973/- was disbursed to some other decree-holders in some other execution application therein. Resultantly, the entire amount has not been paid to the decree-holders in some other execution application therein. Resultantly, the entire amount has not been paid to the decree-holders in some other execution application therein. Resultantly, the entire amount has not been paid to the decree-holders, which was withdrawn at the instance of JDs and has been paid to some other decree- holders, namely Gurdev Singh, Gurlabh Singh and Isher Singh, as per order dated 21.11.88, certified copy of which has been placed on the record today. So, this court has reached the conclusion that the amount which has been withdrawn in the above referred execution and has been disbursed to the decree-holders Gurdev Singh etc., instead of Gurcharan Singh through his L.Rs and as such the award in question has not been satisfied because the JDs have deposited the amount in court, which was disbursed to other Decree-holders Gurdev Singh and others. Consequently, the parties are directed to file their respective fresh calculations in this case, so that further Civil Revision No. 1401 of 2009 -5- order may then be passed accordingly." (emphasis supplied) Learned counsel for the petitioners has not placed anything on record to refute the observations of learned Executing Court, based on a certified copy of the order dated 21.11.88, which are accepted to be correct till shown otherwise.
Therefore, in my opinion, no fault can be found with the approach of learned Executing Court by directing the parties to file their fresh calculations qua the unpaid amount of compensation to the decree- holders. However, the petitioners are free to seek appropriate remedies available to them in accordance with law for recovery of the amount, wrongly disbursed to Gurdev Singh, Gurlabh Singh and Isher Singh.
With the above observation, the present revision petition is dismissed.
March 17, 2009 (JASWANT SINGH) vj JUDGE