CR No 6477 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6477 of 2008 Decided on : 25-11-2008 Ramphal and another ....Petitioners VERSUS Surat Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. S.P.Chahar, Advocate for the petitioners. MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner has impugned the orders dated 12.5.2008 and 19.12.2007 passed by ADJ, Jhajjar and Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Jhajjar respectively. A suit for specific performance was filed by the petitioner to enforce the agreement of sale qua the land of the respondent. During the course of the proceedings, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was moved seeking stay of the alienation of the property which was granted. Subsequently, the land in question was acquired by the State and now the compensation is being released to the respondent, who is the rightful owner. The petitioner has now moved an application seeking stay of the disbursal of the amount of compensation awarded to the respondent pursuant to the aforesaid acquisition. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in case the amount is disbursed to the respondent, it would cause acute prejudice to his rights. CR No 6477 of 2008 2 After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the revision petition deserves to be dismissed. The petitioner only has an agreement to sell on the basis of which he has filed the suit which has yet to be tested on the basis of evidence as to whether this agreement was validly entered into by the respondent and if at all petitioner is entitled to a decree for specific performance. In this eventuality, no prejudice shall be caused if the amount of compensation is released to the respondent and the prayer of the petitioner being mis-conceived has rightly been declined by the learned Trial Court. It is also to be seen that when the land has been subjected to acquisition then obviously the decree of specific performance in the eventuality of one being passed in favour of the petitioner cannot be in the nature of directing the execution of the sale deed and therefore, in such a case, the petitioner at best will be entitled to an alternate relief available to him under the provisions of specific relief. No merit. Dismissed. November 25, 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge