In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6657 of 2008 Date of decision: May 22, 2009 Hari Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J The factual matrix of the case is that 1/4th share of 58 kanals and 19 marlas of land belonging to Prem Raj was acquired and in respect of acquisition an award for a sum of Rs.40,31,965/- was passed in favour of Prem Raj. The petitioner Hari Singh along with his two brothers namely Hukam Chand and Kehar Singh applied for being impleaded as legal heirs by filing an application that they are the only legal heirs of Prem Raj and there are no other legal heirs. They had further averred that Prem Raj had died on 28.1.1999 and also produced a death certificate along with their application. On the strength of the said application, the aforesaid three persons were impleaded as legal heirs and they were delivered the entire amount in equal shares. Thereafter, an application was filed by Dayawati and Omwati, two daughters of Prem Raj pleading that they along with two more daughters of Prem Raj and a widow are also the legal heirs of Prem Raj besides Hari Singh, Hakam Singh and Kehar Singh. On the said application learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, vide order dated 28.2.2006, set aside the award passed in favour of Hari Singh etc. aforesaid and directed them to deposit the amount so received by them along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of receipt of the said amount till deposit of the same in the court. It was further made clear that the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- each received by the applicant Dayawati and others during the pendency of the present proceedings from Hukam Chand shall also be Civil Revision No. 6657 of 2008 -2- *** deposited by them in the court. In pursuance of the aforesaid orders, Dayawati and Omwati deposited the amount received by them from Hukam Chand. The court vide order dated 7.10.2008 has further recorded that if the amount has not been deposited, the court would issue conditional warrants of arrest for depositing the said amount. It is pertinent to mention here that Hukam Chand had deposited his share in the meanwhile, Kehar Singh died in the year 2006. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.2.2006 and 7.10.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that once an award has been passed, then the court could not set aside the same. It this regard, it may be mentioned that the court was not divested with such power if any party commits fraud on the court itself. It has not been denied that Prem Raj had four daughters and three sons, therefore, the court after recording evidence reached the right conclusion that the petitioner Hari Singh etc. along with four sisters and a widow were the legal heirs of Prem Raj and they had withdrawn the amount wrongly by concealing the true facts from the court, therefore, the court had rightly set aside the award. No other meaningful argument has been advanced. It has been further urged that there is no dispute that Prem Raj had four daughters, three sons and a widow but Hari Singh etc. had distributed the entire amount amongst themselves i.e. three brothers who were legally entitled to have compensation money in equal shares. As regards the argument that after receiving the amount, they have distributed the same amongst all the co-sharers, in this regard, he has taken me through the statement of Chandgi Ram (RW2)Mangal (RW3) and Sube Singh (RW4). The aforesaid evidence appears to be an after thought. Initially by filing reply dated 2.3.2007 it was submitted that Omwati, Chandi, Dayawati and Kamlesh are not the daughters of Prem Raj. However, during evidence, they admitted them to be their sisters. As regards the affidavit of Umrawali, it could be observed that she has not been examined in order to establish that she had given that affidavit. Any way, evidence by way of affidavit is inadmissible and is no evidence in the eyes of law. The respondent had no opportunity to cross examine Umarawali to Civil Revision No. 6657 of 2008 -3- *** the point of payment of any amount. No other argument has been raised. Thus, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. May 22, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge