C.R. No. 2067 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2067 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 01.07.2010 Suraj Bhan & others .......... Petitioners Versus Gurdev Singh & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Hardip Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate and Mr. S.P.S. Salooja, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.2.2009, passed by the learned District Judge, Patiala, vide which application moved by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading them as party and for consolidation of the petition filed by the respondents with the reference petition titled as Suraj Bhan and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, pending in the Court, has been ordered to be dismissed. The petitioners sought a reference, under Section 54 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 read with Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking reference for apportionment of the compensation payable to them. The reference C.R. No. 2067 of 2009 -2- moved by the petitioners is pending before the learned District Judge, Patiala. It is the case of the petitioners, that an application has been moved by the landowners for disbursement of the amount deposited in the learned executing Court, in which the petitioners are required to be impleaded. The learned District Judge, dismissed the application moved by the petitioners by holding, that there was no document placed on record filed with the application, nor any jamabandi or girdawari or rent note was placed on record, in support of the application by the petitioners. The learned District Judge, Patiala, therefore, came to the conclusion, that there was no material showing, that there was any interest of the petitioners in the property acquired. The learned Tribunal held, that it cannot be said that the petitioners are necessary party to the case, and dismissed the application filed by the petitioners. The learned Tribunal also held, that the application was not supported by any affidavit or document, therefore, was otherwise not competent. The learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the impugned order on the ground, that the reference made by the petitioners is pending before the learned District Judge, and it is yet to be determined, as to what share out of amount of compensation they would be entitled to. The learned District Judge committed an error in dismissing the application moved by the petitioners by treating them not to be a necessary party. C.R. No. 2067 of 2009 -3- The learned counsel for the petitioners also contended, that petitioners have already moved an application for bringing on record the jamabandi for the year 1999-2000, which was taken on record, so there is material showing interest of the petitioners in the land acquired. On consideration, I find that the judgment of the learned District Judge deserves to be upheld on different grounds, than the one mentioned in the order. It was not necessary for the petitioner to place on record the jamabandi etc. in support of the claim, in view of the fact, that the reference of the petitioners is already pending before the learned District Judge. The learned Court is to determine as to what amount by apportionment the petitioners would be entitled to. However, once it is admitted that the respondent / landowners have not filed any reference, therefore, the petitioners can not be impleaded as party in execution application. The application moved by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was, therefore, totally misconceived, as the executing Court can not go behind the decree. The landowners have only moved an application for release of the amount. If the petitioners have any grievance they were required to file appropriate application for stay of release of portion of the amount. The petitioners cannot seek to be impleaded as a party in the application moved by the petitioners, which is in the nature of execution application which is to be dealt in accordance with law. The reference filed by the petitioners is pending under C.R. No. 2067 of 2009 -4- Section 54 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 read with Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners can not claim to be impleaded as party in execution application, nor the application filed by the respondents before the learned Executing Court can be clubbed with reference moved under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act, as claimed. No merit. Dismissed. 01.07.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE