CR No.1102 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1102 of 2009 Date of decision: 28.4.2009 Smt. Krishna Devi ......Petitioner Versus Parmod Kumar Bansal and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This judgment shall dispose of 13 revision petitions i.e. CR Nos.1102 to 1114 of 2009, as identical questions of law on similar facts have arisen in these revision petitions. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from Civil Revision No.1102 of 2009. Vide notification dated 14.10.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 16 kanals 5 marlas of land was notified for acquisition for a public purpose i.e for construction of a bus stand at Hisar. Another notification dated 1.6.1981 was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act with regard to 23 kanals and 4 marlas of land. Vide two separate awards i.e. Award No.1 and 2 dated 30.9.1982, the Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land. The claimants remained dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and claimed references under Section 18 of the Act. The District Judge, Hisar vide his award dated 6.2.1991 assessed the market value of the entire acquired land at the rate of 100 per sq.yard. The claimants were also held entitled to other statutory benefits. Still aggrieved, the claimants approached this Court seeking CR No.1102 of 2009 2 enhancement of compensation by filing regular second appeal against the award of the District Judge. Respondents No.1 to 7 filed an execution application seeking execution of the award dated 6.2.1991 rendered by the District Judge, Hisar. In the aforesaid execution application, the petitioner filed objections, claiming that respondents No.1 to 7 had no right to claim compensation of the entire area of the park as well as the street because the petitioner was also equal and joint owner of the aforesaid street as well as the park and was entitled to get the compensation of the said park and the street. The Executing Court framed the issues arising in the objection petition filed by the petitioner and thereafter posted the case for evidence. The evidence was led and the case was fixed for recording remaining evidence. On 27.9.2006, this Court set aside the award dated 6.2.1991 rendered by the District Judge, Hisar in RFA No.1688 of 1991 and directed the Reference Court to determine the market value of the acquired land afresh. The Executing Court vide impugned order dated 31.1.2007 dismissed the execution application filed by respondents No.1 to 7 while noticing the order dated 27.9.2006 passed by this Court in RFA No.1688 of 1991, setting aside the award of the District Judge dated 6.2.1991 and held that the execution petition has become infructuous. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the Executing Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the observations made by the Executing Court while passing the impugned order to the effect that compensation received by the claimants shall not be refunded back till the matter is finally decided by the Reference Court, are wrong and are liable to be set aside as the rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. CR No.1102 of 2009 3 The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. Admittedly, execution of the award dated 6.2.1991 rendered by the District Judge, Hisar, was sought and the aforesaid award was set aside by this Court vide order dated 27.9.2006 passed in RFA No.1688 of 1991, thereby remanding the matter to the District Judge, Hisar for fresh determination of the market value of the acquired land. On passing of the order dated 27.9.2006 and setting aside of the award dated 6.2.1991, nothing remained before the Executing Court which could be proceeded further. Whatever rights the petitioner claimed in the objection petition were flowing from the award dated 6.2.1991 passed by the Reference Court which has been set aside. Since there is no award/decree of the Court in existence which could be executed, the Executing Court rightly held that the execution application filed by respondent No.1 to 7 has become infructuous. Moreover, while passing order dated 27.9.2006 in RFA No.1688 of 1991, this Court had already safeguarded the interest of all the interested persons by observing that the payments made to the claimants shall abide by the decision of the fresh determination by the District Judge. It is needless to say that the petitioners shall have fresh occasion to raise any valid objection available to them on passing of the fresh award by the Reference Court. Thus, I find no merit in these revision petitions and the same are dismissed. April 28, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE