Civil Revision No.8055 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.8055 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 23, 2011 Gurbachan Singh .....Petitioner v. Balbir Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Bhag Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 17.10.2011, Annexure P18, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, i.e., Executing Court. Briefly stated, a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short `the Act') was filed by present petitioner- Gurbachan Singh, claiming compensation of the total acquired land measuring 7 kanals 19 marlas. However, respondents-applicants, i.e., Gurnam Singh and Balbir Singh filed a petition under Section 30 of the Act for apportionment of the amount of compensation. Pending the said petition, an application was filed stopping disbursement of the amount of compensation to the present petitioner. Learned Executing Court, i.e., learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, passed the impugned order releasing compensation of land measuring 1 kanal 5 marlas, after deducting Civil Revision No.8055 of 2011(O&M) -2- the amount already received by decree holder-Gurbachan Singh and, however, the remaining amount was ordered to be deposited in fixed deposit receipt in the name of the court pending decision of reference under Section 30 of the Act. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents are unnecessarily causing delay in disbursement of amount of compensation to the present petitioner and that they are having no right in the land in dispute as they never challenged the release deed in favour of present petitioner. However, plea of present petitioner is yet to be adjudicated by learned trial Court as petition under Section 30 of the Act filed by respondents no.1 and 2 is still pending adjudication. Part payment has already been released to the petitioner and the remaining amount has been ordered to be deposited in the shape of fixed deposit receipt in the name of Court. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Executing Court in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:- Civil Revision No.8055 of 2011(O&M) -3- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the decision of pending reference under Section 30 of the Act. 23.12.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge