IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5457 of 2008. Date of decision:- 05.02.2009. Raj Kumar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Rathee, Additional A.G. Haryana. JASWANT SINGH J.(Oral) Petitioner-Raj Kumar Singh has filed this revision petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the order dated 20.10.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula wherein his claim for issuance of refund voucher for release of the amount of compensation, deposited by the Land Acquisition Collector, falling to his one-third share, being the legal representative of Premwati and Raj Kumari, has been declined; firstly, on the ground that the execution has not been filed by the petitioner-Raj Kumar and secondly, that the counsel for the petitioner has stated that there is stay passed by the Hon'ble High Court regarding disbursement of the compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Raj Kumar contends that factually an application (Annexure P-4) dated 18.10.2007 has been filed by the petitioner- Raj Kumar, upon which this impugned order has been passed and secondly; counsel for the petitioner Shri K.K.Saini, did not make the aforesaid submission and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further contends that the learned Court vide orders dated 15.04.2006 and 15.12.2006 ordered the issuance of the refund voucher regarding release of the amount of Civil Revision No.5457 of 2008 -2- compensation in the case of identically situated Mohan Singh, the other legal representative, as per his two-third share. Mr. Anil Rathee, learned Additional A.G. Haryana very fairly submits that as per the instructions from the Department, there is no stay order operating against disbursement of the amount of compensation falling to the share of the petitioner-Raj Kumar. It is not disputed that qua the share of the petitioner i.e. one-third (being the legal representative), which formed the part of total compensation, release orders dated 15.04.2006 and 15.12.2006 at Annexure P-1, have already been issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client is willing to make a fresh application for release of refund voucher as per his entitlement and the same may kindly be ordered to be decided within a particular time-frame. Learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana has no objection to the same. Therefore, in view of the agreed stand, the impugned order dated 20.10.2007 (Annexure P-1) is set aside and the petitioner is directed to move a fresh application within two weeks from today and the learned Executing Court within next two weeks shall decide the same, and in case it is found that the petitioner is not entitled to such release, a speaking order shall be passed. With the above observations, the revision petition is disposed of. Dasti on payment. February 05, 2009 (JASWANT SINGH) vj JUDGE