Civil Revision No.2769 of 1995 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2769 of 1995 Date of Order: 01.02.2011 Pritam Singh (deceased through his legal representatives) ...Petitioner Versus Union of India ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present:Mr. Ankit Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the Union of India RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No.2769 and 2770 of 1995 as they involve adjudication of similar questions of fact and law. The petitioner was owner of two separate parcels of land measuring 9 acres 5 kanals and 14 marlas(Civil Revision No.2769 of 1995) and 18 acres 17 kanals and 5 marlas(Civil Revision No.2770 of 1995). The land was admittedly acquired for setting up a cantonment. The petitioner and his co-sharers filed reference petitions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Civil Revision No.2769 of 1995 -2- Act, 1894. The reference petitions were decided on 29.09.1979. The petitioner and his co-sharers filed Regular First Appeal Nos. 1861 and 2394 of 1980. The appeals were allowed vide judgments dated 10.11.1981 and 27.11.1981, respectively by enhancing compensation subject, however, to the court fee paid. The petitioner and his co-sharers were entitled to receive enhanced compensation of Rs.5,10,877.50/- and Rs.9, 94, 140/-, respectively but as they had not affixed adequate court fee, compensation was confined to Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.5,85,000/- respectively. The petitioner's co-sharers filed S.L.P.Nos.9388 of 1985 and 9387 of 1985, which were disposed of on 11.04.1986 with permission to deposit the deficit court fee. The order dated 11.04.1986, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as follows:- “There will no order in the appeal save and except that the appellant in each appeal will be allowed to pay within two months from today the deficit court fee covering the enhanced amount of compensation awarded by the High Court in L.P.A. No.279/1982 as payable for the land in question. The appeals will stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.” The petitioner's co-sharers filed Civil Misc. No.1411-CII of 1986 and Civil Misc. No.1415-CII of 1986 for permission to Civil Revision No.2769 of 1995 -3- deposit deficit court fee with respect to the entire land, including the share belonging to the petitioner. Vide order dated 29.05.1986 permission was granted to deposit the deficit court fee of Rs.2098-40 paise and Rs.4001.60 paise respectively. The petitioner, thereafter filed an application for inclusion of his name in the memorandum of parties in C.M.No.1411-CI of 1986 and C.M.No.1415-CI of 1986. The application was dismissed by holding that no order has been passed depriving the petitioner of requisite compensation. The petitioner, thereafter filed an execution petition for payment of compensation in terms of the court fee affixed and the memo of costs drawn. The Executing Court dismissed the petition by holding that as permission to deposit his share of the court fee was not granted, enhanced compensation cannot be paid to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that land was acquired from the joint holding of the petitioner and his co- sharers. The first appeals were filed jointly by the petitioner and his co-sharers after affixing court fee. The petitioner's co- sharers have admittedly affixed deficit court fee with respect to the entire land including the petitioner's share, also. The petitioner did not file a Special Leave Petition for permission to affix additional court fee but his application for similar relief, for inclusion of his name in the memo of parties, in the misc. application, was rejected by holding that no order has been passed depriving the petitioner of requisite compensation. The Civil Revision No.2769 of 1995 -4- Executing Court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to reject the petitioner's claim, on the premise that the petitioner was not granted permission to affix deficit court fee or that the petitioner did not file an application for deposit of Court fee. It is further argued that land was acquired from the common holding of petitioner and his co-sharers. The payment of court fee by one co-sharer on behalf of another enures for the benefit of all co- sharers. It is further argued that as a memo of costs/decree sheet was drawn up, reflecting compensation for the petitioner's land, and the petitioner's application was dismissed by holding that no order has been passed depriving the petitioner of compensation, the Executing Court had no jurisdiction to dismiss the execution petition. Counsel for the Union of India submits that as the petitioner was not a party to the S.L.P. or to the subsequent application, filed by the petitioner's co-sharers the mere fact that his co-sharers may have deposited court fee for the entire land, does not entitle the petitioner to receive enhanced compensation. The petitioner, though, a co-sharer was required to deposit separate court fee. The mere affixing of deficit court fee by another co-sharer does not entitle the petitioner, in absence of the prayer made by him to deposit deficit court fee to receive compensation on the basis of court fee affixed by his co-sharer. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the Civil Revision No.2769 of 1995 -5- impugned order. Admittedly, land belonging to the petitioner was acquired from his joint holding. The first appeals were filed by the petitioner jointly with his other co-sharers. The compensation though enhanced was confined to the court fee affixed and, therefore, reduced in accordance with the court fee affixed on the memorandum of appeal. The petitioner's co-sharers filed Special Leave Petitions, praying that they should be permitted to affix additional court fee. The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed but with permission to affix the requisite court fee on the memorandum of appeal. The petitioner's co-sharers filed an application to affix court fee on the entire land, including the petitioner's share. The applications were allowed and an amended memo of costs/decree sheet was drawn up reflecting the amount to be paid for the entire land, including the share of land, belonging to the petitioner. Apprehending that , he may not be paid, enhanced compensation, the petitioner filed an application for inclusion of his name in the application filed by his co-sharers. The application was dismissed by holding that no order has been passed depriving the petitioner of requisite compensation. The above facts are not disputed by either party. The Executing Court has dismissed the execution petition on the ground that the petitioner was not a party to the S.L.P. where permission was granted to his co-shares to affix deficit court fee. The mere fact that the petitioner may not have approached the Civil Revision No.2769 of 1995 -6- Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot deprive the petitioner of his right to receive compensation particularly when court fee with respect to his share was deposited by his co-sharers and the C.M.No.339-CI of 1990 filed by the petitioner, praying that his name be included in the memo of parties of the application, filed by his co-shares, was dismissed by passing the following order:- “No order denying the compensation to the petitioners has been produced or brought to my notice. Dismissed. June 1, 1990 Sd/- I.S.Tiwana, Judge” The order clearly establishes that as no order was passed, depriving the petitioner of compensation, the petitioner has to be awarded compensation in accordance with the memo of costs/decree sheet drawn. It would be necessary once again to emphasise that the petitioner's share of court fee was deposited by his co-sharers. The Executing Court ignored this order and the fact that the acquired land was held in common by the petitioner and his co-sharers. The petitioner was deprived of his land and should not be deprived of due compensation, on technicalities. The Executing Court in my considered opinion adopted a hyper technical view of the matter and failed to consider the order dated 01.06.1990 and the fact that an amended memorandum of costs/decree sheet was drawn up recording payment of court fee on behalf of the petitioner. Civil Revision No.2769 of 1995 -7- In view of what has been stated herienabove, the revisions are allowed, the order dated 5.5.1995 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Executing Court (the Additional District Judge, Bathinda) to proceed with the execution proceedings afresh and in accordance with law. February 01, 2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE