R.F.A. No. 2182 of 1984 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2182 of 1984 Date of decision: September 09 , 2008 Swatantra Land & Finance Private Limited, New Delhi .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. I. K. Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mrs. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Mr. Harminderjit Singh, Advocate for added respondent No.3- Shiv Kumar Rajesh Bindal J. The challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 12.9.1984, passed by learned District Judge, Faridabad in reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') regarding apportionment of the compensation on account of acquisition of land. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 74 kanals 19 marlas comprised in khasra Nos. 8, 9/1, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19/1, 23/2 and 24 of Rectangle No. 21 and Khasra No. 3/2, 4 and 5/1 of Rectangle No. 24, situated in Village Itmadpur was acquired. The appellant preferred claim by asserting that in the year 1962, it had laid a colony under the name and style of Indera-Prastha Colony and purchased 100 acres of land from various persons for the purpose. Out of 100 acres of land, the State Government acquired 37.8 acres, leaving an area of 62.2 acres for the colony. Thereafter, the appellant on 13.4.1975 entered into an agreement with respondent No.2 to purchase his land measuring 77 kanals 12 marlas. Respondent No.2 failed to perform his part of the contract which necessitated filing of a suit for specific performance. The claim in the suit was compromised according to which a decree for 22 kanals 5 marlas of land was passed on 17.10.1977 and the suit with respect to the remaining land was dismissed. As respondent No.2 failed to get the sale deed registered in spite of the R.F.A. No. 2182 of 1984 [2] decree of the Civil Court, execution was filed. In compliance with the directions of the Executing Court, the appellant deposited the balance consideration money in terms of the agreement for payment to the vendor for execution of the sale deed. After the suit was decreed, the land in question was acquired vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 4.11.1977. The decree was ultimately executed vide order dated 4.10.1982 and the sale deed in favour of the appellant was registered. The claim before the Court below was for compensation on account of acquisition of land regarding which a valid decree was already there in favour of the appellant before the acquisition of the land. The claim made by the appellant before the Court below was rejected primarily on consideration of the fact that after the suit filed by the appellant for specific performance of 77 kanals 12 marlas of land was decreed on the basis of compromise for 22 kanals 5 marlas of land, a fresh agreement was entered into between the parties for the sale of entire land on 13.12.1977. Considering this fact and holding that a mere agreement to sell does not confer any title or create any right in the property, the claim made by the appellant was rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the fact regarding agreement to sell dated 13.4.1975 for sale of 77 kanals 12 marlas of land by respondent No.2 in favour of the appellant is not disputed. Similar is the position with regard to the passing of decree for specific performance of 22 kanals 5 marlas of land on 17.10.1977. As in terms of the decree, respondent No.2 failed to get the sale deed executed, in execution proceedings initiated by the appellant, sale deed was directed to be executed for 22 kanals 5 marlas of land on 4.10.1982 for which even the balance consideration money was also deposited by the appellant in the Court below. Further, it is submitted that the right of the appellant to the property measuring 22 kanals 5 marlas was crystalized with the passing of decree in its favour. The execution was required to be filed only because respondent No.2, though consenting to the passing of decree, did not adhere to the terms thereof. Still further, assailing the findings recorded by the learned Court below, it is submitted that merely because an agreement for the entire land, including the land which formed part of the decree, was entered into later on, will not mean that the right of the appellant as was created vide decree dated 17.10.1977 were foregone by the appellant. This fact is clearly established with the execution of the decree to the extent of 22 kanals 5 marlas on payment of entire consideration by the appellant. Relying upon the judgments in Dr. G. II Grant v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 237, Gurdial Singh and others v. Sewa Singh and others, 1972 PLJ 713, Barnikana Appalanaidu and others v. Barnikana Appayyamma, AIR 1983 AP R.F.A. No. 2182 of 1984 [3] 177 and M/s Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd. v. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyvely and others, AIR 1995 SC 1004, the submission is that the appellant is entitled to receive the compensation on account of acquisition of land qua 22 kanals 5 marlas of land. No one has appeared for respondent No.2 in spite of the fact that the case is on regular board since 25.8.2008 and was taken up 4/5 times. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, I find merits in the submissions made by him. The admitted facts on record are that on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 13.4.1975 for land measuring 77 kanals 12 marlas, a decree on the basis of compromise for land measuring 22 kanals 5 marlas was passed on 17.10.1977. The entire land was acquired vide notification dated 4.11.1977. As respondent No.2 failed to get the sale deed executed in terms of the decree, in the execution filed by the appellant the sale deed was executed on the directions of the Court on 4.10.1982 on deposit of balance consideration money by the appellant. Even an application filed by respondent No.2 before the Court below on 10.2.1983 for withdrawl of Rs. 49,300/- deposited by the appellant on account of balance sale consideration has also been placed on record. However, learned counsel for the appellant could not get the final status of the proceedings in that application regarding the order, if any, passed thereon for withdrawal of amount by respondent No.2. Still from this application, it is established that in terms of the decree in its favour, the appellant had deposited balance sale consideration before the Court below at the time of execution of the sale deed. The fact regarding execution of the sale deed on the directions of the Court is even recorded in the impugned order passed by the learned Court below. Keeping the aforesaid facts in view, in my considered opinion, the learned Court below had gone wrong in holding that the appellant will not be a person interested merely on the ground that a fresh agreement to sell was executed with regard to the entire land on 13.12.1977. In fact, the appellant in the present case had earlier a decree in its favour to the extent of 22 kanals 5 marlas of land, which was ultimately executed. Merely because a fresh agreement had been entered into between the parties, the rights accruing to the appellant on the basis of the decree of the Civil Court regarding 22 kanals 5 marlas of land will not be washed away. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned above, the impugned award of the learned Court below is set aside and the appellant in the present case is held entitled to receive compensation on account of acquisition of land measuring 22 kanals 5 marlas of land and the respondents shall be entitled to retain the R.F.A. No. 2182 of 1984 [4] consideration money as agreed upon between the parties for sale of the aforesaid land. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 09 , 2008 mk