A
B
c
D
E
UNION OF INDIA
v.
RATTAN SINGH AND ORS. ETC.
APRIL 12, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
S.26-Award of compensation by Court-<:owt directing the appellant
to deposit 50% of enhanced compensation-Held, respondents are entitled to
withdraw the amount without fumishing any secwity-In case appeals are
allowed respondents would restitute the amounts withdraw.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7616 of
1996 Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.8.95 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 444 of 1995.
N.N. Goswami, Wasim Qadri, Mrs. Anil Katiyar for the Appellant.
Manoj Swarup, Mahabir Singh and S.B.S. Chauhan for the Respon-
dents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
F
We have lieard learned counsel on both sides.
By order dated December 4 1995, this Court had issued notice and
directed interim stay of the execution of the awards, subject to the condi-
tion that the appellant would pay 50% of the enhanced compensation. We
are informed by Shri Goswami, learned senior counsel for the appellant,
G that ·the order has been complied with. On the other hand, it is contended
for the respondents that the deposit 50% of the amount was not in terms
of the decree of the reference Court. Be it as it may, the appellant is
directed lo deposit 50% of the enhanced compensation as awarded under
Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the decree and award
H which is the subject mater of the present appeals. The respondents are at
2%
l
U.0.l. v. RATTAN SINGH
'297
liberty to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. The A
withdrawal of 50% of the amount will be subject to the result in the appeal.
In case the appeals are allowed, to that extent the respondents shall
restitute the amounts withdrawn.
Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on December 4, 1995, an
enquiry was held into the allegation made by the respondents in their B
counter affidavit, in particular by one Mr. B.S. Hans S/o Ratan Singh that
one B.K. Mehta, dealing clerk of the Defence Estate Office, Gopinath
Bazar approached the claimants and asked them to pay 2% commission
promising that the decretal amount will be deposited on R.K. Sharma
Director, Defence Estate, Western Command, Chandigarh came to be
C
appointed as an Enquiry Officer. In his report dated December 26, 1995
in paragraph 28, he came to the conclusion that there is no evidence in
regard to the allegation made by the Hans and members of the iiar. On
going through the report submitted by him, we are at a loss to understand
his conclusion in the face of the material placed before him. However, Mr.
Goswami informed us that a regular enquiry has been ordered and it would D
be conducted in this matter. It is needless to say that the report submitted
by R.K. Sharma is not even worthy of salt to look at and was not stemmed
with a sense of responsibility but with a Zeal to shield the corrupt and the
reasons are not far to seek and ex facie eloquent. The Enquiry Officer
should independently go into and conduct the enquiry and take ap-
E
propriate action and submit the report to this Court on the final action
taken in that matter.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.
R.P.
Appeals disposed of.
Lex