CR No.5345 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5345 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.1.2009 Satveer Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. J.R.Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kashmira Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM Nos.1185 & 1186 C-II of 2009 Applications are allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.5345 of 2008 (O&M) The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 9.9.2008 passed by the District Judge, Ludhiana whereby application filed by the petitioners under Section 30 read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short the ‘Act’) has been dismissed. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition as alleged in the petition are that respondent No.1 notified a Scheme on 8.8.1976 under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 acquiring the land measuring 62 kanals 4 marlas as detailed in the application. The Scheme was sanctioned vide notification dated 24.11.1978 issued under Section 42 of the aforesaid Act. The Land Acquisition Collector, Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana made an award under section 11 of the Act on 12.6.1980. The reference application filed by respondent No.3-Sham Singh, who is father of the petitioners, CR No.5345 of 2008 (O&M) 2 under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation is pending before the Land Acquisition Tribunal, Ludhiana. The petitioners filed an application dated 31.1.2006 under Section 30 read with Section 18 of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector, Ludhiana which was sent to the Court of District Judge, Ludhiana for decision. In this application, the petitioners alleged that they along with respondent No.3 constitute a Joint Hindu Family and the acquired land belongs to Joint Hindu Family. The proceedings for enhancement of compensation are still pending and in case the compensation is enhanced, then the applicants-petitioners would also be entitled to the enhanced compensation being members of the Joint Hindu Family. The District Judge, Ludhiana vide impugned order dated 9.9.2008 has rejected the application under Section 30 read with Section 18 of the Act illegally. CM Nos.1185-86 CII of 2009 have been moved by the petitioners to place on record a copy of the application filed by the petitioners to implead one Master Tara Singh College, Purani Bazar Mandi Chowk, Ludhiana and on the basis of this application, learned counsel for the petitioners states that they have also moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC on 5.3.2008 for impleading Master Tara Singh College, Purani Bazar Mandi Chowk, Ludhiana in the ends of justice in order to decide the controversy effectively and that the District Judge, Ludhiana vide impugned order, instead of passing any order on the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC for adding the name of Master Tara Singh College, Purani Bazar Mandi Chowk, Ludhiana, has disposed of the application under Section 30 read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, itself whereas the record shows that the same is still pending and the evidence is being recorded and thus, the impugned order is erroneous on the face of CR No.5345 of 2008 (O&M) 3 the record and is liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as under : “Dispute as to apportionment-When the amount of compensation has been settled under section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof, is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court.” Admittedly in this case, at the time of disbursement of the compensation as determined by the Land Acquisition Collector, no dispute arose for its apportionment as the petitioners have stated in their application that they were granted the compensation as per their share and thereafter, it is the case of the petitioners themselves that the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act filed by respondent No.3-Sham Singh, who is father of present petitioners, is still pending before the Reference Court. Therefore, any application under Section 30 of the Act for apportionment of the enhanced compensation which is yet to be determined cannot be maintained in law. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to answer the question as to how the application under Section 30 of the Act for apportionment of the enhanced compensation filed at the instance of the petitioners is maintainable. From the facts, it appears that the question which the petitioners want to raise is about the entitlement of the petitioners to receive compensation being coparceners along with their father and in such circumstances, the remedy of the petitioners to get their rights settled vis-à-vis their father with regard to the property in dispute is somewhere else and not under Section 30 of the Act. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the CR No.5345 of 2008 (O&M) 4 application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC for impleading Master Tara Singh College, Purani Bazar Mandi Chowk, Ludhiana is still pending appears to be incorrect as a perusal of the record shows that the aforesaid respondent sought to be impleaded is already a party in the Reference Application filed by respondent No.3, as mentioned by the petitioners themselves in their application for impleading the aforesaid respondent. From the record, it appears that reference under Section 18 filed by respondent No.3 now remains pending and not the application filed by the petitioners In view of the above discussion, I find no reason to interfere in the order of the District Judge. However, it will be open to the petitioners to avail any other remedy available to them in accordance with law to get their right to receive compensation being coparceners of the Joint Hindu Family Property decided. Dismissed. January 31, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE