LexRAMESH SINGH (DIED) BY L.RS. AND ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c RAMESH SINGH (DIED) BY L.RS. AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. JANUARY 15, 1996 . [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Sections 11, 18, 26, 28-A, 54--Power to amend decree or award compen- sation and statutory benefits-Execution court devoid of jurisdiction--One clai1nant getting higher conzpensation-Other claim.ants do not automatically get the same compensation unless the remedies provided under the Act are availed of--Principle of equality not violated-Constitution of India, Art. 14. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No. D 3469196. E F G From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.93 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Rev. No. 2248/92. Ms. Aparna ·Rohtagi and K.B. Rohtagi for the Petitioners. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) (for short, 'the Act') was published on August 2, 1973 acquiring the lands situated in Etmadpur Village for public purpose. The Collector awarded compensation under Section 11 by his award dated February 19, 1974. Dissatisfied therewith, Ramesh Singh and Hari Singh filed application under Section 18 which was duly referred by the Collector to the Civil Court. The Addi. District Judge, Gurgaon dismissed the reference petition on May 3, 1978. Ruma! Singh, one of the claimants equally sought a separate reference in respect of his claim. Thereon, the Addi. District Judge, Gurgaon enhanced the compensation. The Legal Representatives of Ramesh Singh, the petitioners and Hari Singh filed an application to implead themselves in the reference of Ruma! Singh which was also dismissed by the District Judge on May !, 1986. The petitioners allege that they challenged the order in a revision said to have been filed on November 3, 1986 and is stated to be pending decision in the High Court. H However, we are not concerned with the same. 484 \ ... ' I RAMESH SINGH (DIED) BY LRS. v. STATE 485 When Ruma! Singh filed execution application to enforce his award made under Section 26, the petitioners filed an application in the execution Court to award the same compensation on par with Ruma! Singh and the Addi. District Judge, Gurgaon, by his order dated April 8, 1992 allowed the application and enhanced the compensation as awarded to Ruma! Singh. The State filed the Revision No. 2248 of 1992 and by the impugned order dated September 2, 1993, the learned single Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order of the District Judge. Thus this special leave petition. Shri Rohtagi, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have a joint interest in the lands acquired admeasuring 20 kanals 4 marlas and, therefore, being co-owners, they are entitled to the same compensation as was awarded to Ruma! Singh. The execution Court, there- fore, has rightly granted the enhanced compensation to the petitioners. The High Court was not right in its revisionaljurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C. to interfere with and set aside the order. There is manifest error of jurisdiction committed by the High Court. We find no force in the contention. Jn view of A B c the narration of the fact, it is clear that Ramesh Singh and Hari Singh D dissatisfied with the award made by the Collector under Section 11 had sought reference under Section 18 which was duly made to the Civil Court. The District Judge dismissed the reference. Ruma! Singh equally sought reference and he had the compensation enhanced in the award and decree dated May I, 1986 under Section 26. The only remedy to the petitioners and Hari Singh E is to have corrected the illegality in the order of reference under Section 18. It does not appear to have been availed of. The remedy under Section 28A is not available to the petitioners since they have availed of the remedy under Section 18. The question then is : whether the execution Court which passed the p award in the case of Ruma! Singh had jurisdiction to implead the non-parties to the award and make the award in their favour. It is settled law that execution Court cannot go behind the award and decree. It has jurisdiction only to execute the decree made under Section 26 and in case of an appeal, under Section 54 and further appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution to this Court as may be modified in the appellate decree which ultimately would be the executable decree. B
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.