Civil Revision No.4752 of 2011 alongwith 3 connected petitions -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Civil Revision No.4752 of 2011 Mohinder Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus Haryana State and others .....Respondents 2. Civil Revision No.4753 of 2011 Surjit Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus Haryana State and others .....Respondents 3. Civil Revision No.4773 of 2011 Sube Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus Haryana State and others .....Respondents 4. Civil Revision No.4774 of 2011 Mahender Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus Haryana State and others .....Respondents Date of Decision: 8.8.2011 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Manoj Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioners. M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J. (Oral) As identical factual matrix is involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of above indicated four revision petitions, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the facts have been extracted from CR No.4752 of 2011 titled as “Mohinder Singh and others Vs. Haryana State and others” for ready reference. 2. The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant Civil Revision No.4752 of 2011 alongwith 3 connected petitions -2- revision petitions and emanating from the record, is that the land of the petitioner- claimants was acquired by the appropriate Government, for public purpose of extension of cantonment area at village Bada Rangran, Tehsil and Distt.Hisar, by way of notification dated 18.6.1984 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 3. Having completed all the codal formalities, award No.7 of the year 1985-86 was stated to have been passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Hisar. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the reference Court, which was decided, through the medium of judgment dated 28.2.1989. The market value of the acquired land was ultimately determined by the High Court. 4. As the respondents did not pay the entire compensation, therefore, the petitioner-claimants filed their separate execution petitions for recovery of the balance amount of compensation. 5. The executing Court framed the following issues in the execution petitions:- 1. How much total land of the petitioners was acquired and in which category it falls?OPP 2. Relief. 6. The executing Court closed the evidence of the claimants and dismissed their execution petitions, by means of impugned orders dated 19.2.2010 (Annexure P1). 7. Aggrieved by the impugned orders (Annexure P1), the petitioner- claimants filed the instant revision petitions. 8. At the very outset, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to the respondents, in order to save them from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the matter, particularly when they can be compensated with adequate costs in this regard. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-claimants, going Civil Revision No.4752 of 2011 alongwith 3 connected petitions -3- through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petitions deserve to be partly accepted in this respect. 10. As is evident from the record that the land of the petitioner-claimants was acquired and ultimately the market price was determined by the High Court. As the respondents did not make the entire payment due to them, therefore, they (petitioners) filed the execution petitions for the recovery of the balance amount of compensation. The execution petitions were dismissed by the executing Court, vide impugned orders (Annexure P1). The main ground, which appears to have been weighed with the executing Court in dismissing the execution petitions was that the decree holders have availed three effective opportunities to lead their evidence, but in vain and there was no justification for adjournment of the case. Here, to me, the executing Court has slipped into a legal error in this respect. It is not a matter of dispute that after filing of the execution petitions, the Executing Court written various letters to the respondents to deposit the balance amount of compensation. 11. Ex facie, it may be true, that the petitioner-claimants have availed three effective opportunities, but taking into consideration their valuable right to recover the compensation of their acquired land, to my mind, it ipso facto, is not a valid ground to dismiss the execution petitions for want of evidence. The executing Court ought to have granted adequate opportunities to the petitioner- claimants to prove their entitlement for the recovery of the remaining amount of compensation, subject to payment of costs. 11. Not only that, in a connected execution petition, the executing Court has also dismissed the execution petition for want of evidence and that order was set aside by a Coordinate Bench (Arvind Kumar, J.) of this Court, by virtue of order dated 13.5.2011, rendered in CR No.854 of 2011 titled as “Rajinder Vs. Union of India and another”. Therefore, to me, the petitioners are also entitled to Civil Revision No.4752 of 2011 alongwith 3 connected petitions -4- two adequate opportunities to adduce their evidence in this relevant connection, particularly when other side can be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant behalf. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of hearing of the execution petitions, the instant revision petitions are partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned orders (Annexure P1) are hereby set aside. The executing Court is directed to provide two opportunities to the petitioners, to adduce their evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as costs in each case, to be paid by the petitioners to the respondents. 13. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the executing Court forthwith, for strict compliance. 8.8.2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) AS JUDGE