RFA No. 1726 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 26.7.2010 (1) RFA No. 1726 of 2003 (O&M) The Northern Railway ...Appellant Versus Shri Gaushala Society (Regd.) Panipat (Haryana) and others ...Respondents (2) RFA No. 2601 of 2003 (O&M) Northern Railway ...Appellant Versus Dharam Pal Jindal and others ...Respondents (3) RFA No. 2602 of 2003 (O&M) Northern Railway ...Appellant Versus Mam Chand and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Gupta, AAG Haryana. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. RAJESH BINDAL J The Railway is in appeal against the judgment of the learned Court below passed in a land acquisition case assessing the amount of compensation for the acquired land and directing its payment by all the respondents including the appellant. The facts have been noticed from RFA No. 1726 of 2003. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 12.12.1994 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( for short, 'the Act') and vide notification dated 13.6.1996 under Section 6 of the Act, State of Haryana acquired land of the petitioners for public purpose, namely for construction of broad gauge railway siding for Indian Oil Coproration Ltd. for Indian Oil Refinery RFA No. 1726 of 2003 2 in the area of village Sithana. The Land Acquisition Collector ( for short, 'the Collector') awarded compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre. The learned Additional District Judge, on reference under Section 18 of the Act awarded compensation @ ` 97.94 paise per square yard. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Northern Railway in the present case was impleaded as party to the proceedings before the learned Court below seeking enhancement of compensation whereas the land in question was acquired by the State of Haryana for benefit and use of Indian Oil Corporation as they wanted to construct a railway siding thereon. The acquired property was not to be transferred to the railways and the compensation as awarded by the Collector was to be paid by the Indian Oil Corporation and not the railways. Railways was unnecessarily impleaded as party in the reference proceedings. Vide impugned award a direction has been issued by the learned Court below holding all the respondents in the reference petition, liable to satisfy the award. The submission is that once the railway has nothing to do with the acquisition they cannot be burdened to pay the enhanced compensation when they are not the beneficiary of the acquired land and even the amount as awarded by the Collector was also not paid by them. Learned counsel for the State of Haryana as well as Indian Oil Corporation did not dispute the factual position that the land in question was acquired by the State of Haryana for use and benefit of Indian Oil Corporation and Railway has nothing to do with the acquisition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on account of admitted facts on record in my opinion, the appeals filed by the appellant in the present case deserve to be accepted. Once it is admitted that the land in question was acquired by the State of Haryana for benefit and use of Indian Oil Corporation merely because a railway siding was to be constructed thereon the land owners could not possibly claim enhanced compensation from the Railways, as the property was not to be transferred to the railways. It was to remain in the ownership of the party for whose benefit it was required. Impleading of Railways as respondent in the reference petition filed by the land RFA No. 1726 of 2003 3 owners shows their total casual attitude. This amount to their unnecessary harassment which has resulted into avoidable litigation. Considering the aforesaid facts, the appeals are accepted. The impugned award passed by the learned Court below against the appellant-the Northern Railways, is set aside. Considering the fact that the Northern Railways was impleaded as party to the proceedings being totally unnecessary the land owners are burdened with costs of Rs. 10,000/- in each appeal. (RAJESH BINDAL) 26.7.2010 JUDGE Reema