C.R No. 6655 of 2009 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No. 6655 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : May 11, 2010 Panchayati Akhara Bara Udasin Nirwan, Kurukshetra & another, ...... Petitioner (s) v. Baba Mal Dass Charitable Trust, Dera Kahir, Village Nizampur Kumbhra U.T.Chandigarh and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Raman K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.C.Dhiman, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 1.8.2009 (Annexure P-8) whereby an application for condonation of delay (for setting aside the exparte proceedings) has been rejected. Certain land was acquired. An application under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was filed by the proprietors of the village claiming that compensation should be awarded to them. In that application, C.R No. 6655 of 2009 (O&M) ::2:: the petitioners as well as respondent No.1 were parties. The petitioners were proceeded against ex-parte and ultimately application filed by the proprietors was rejected vide judgment dated 3.9.2004. On 5.9.2007, the instant application for setting aside the exparte proceedings was filed along with an application for condonation of delay. The ground taken is that the earlier Mahant had died in the year 2005 and the successor moved the Court immediately within 30 days of attaining knowledge and, thus, it was a fit case where delay should have been condoned. The trial Court noticed that the petitioners had also filed a civil suit against respondent No.1 in respect of the Mohtmimship and all other rights including compensation involved in the present case etc. of the Akhara in question. In that civil suit, respondent No.1 filed an amended written statement on 8.6.2005 wherein a detailed reference was made to the award in question. The trial Court held that atleast from that date, the petitioners would be deemed to have notice of the alleged award. It was also noticed that the predecessor Mahant had died on 18.10.2005 and consequently the plea that the alleged successor Mahant moved the Court immediately after getting the knowledge could not be countenanced. During arguments, it transpires that the main concern of the petitioners is that the dismissal of the instant application should not prejudicially affect their civil suit. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has very gracefully admitted that any decision on the application under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would not be res judicata in the civil suit. In this view of the matter, the primary grouse of counsel for the petitioners is satisfied. Even otherwise, counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any such material C.R No. 6655 of 2009 (O&M) ::3:: irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which may warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main petition has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 11, 2010. JUDGE `kk'