Civil Revision No.129 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.129 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 7, 2011 Smt.Shanti Devi .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.476-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.129 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 23.10.2010, Annexure P5, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, vide which two applications, Annexure P2 and P3, filed on behalf of the petitioner and respondent no.4 in pending execution were decided. 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, Hisar. Facts relevant for the purpose of decision of present revision petition are that land of petitioner and respondent no.4 was acquired by State of Haryana for public purposes and award No.2 dated 17.5.1995 was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector. Dispute arose between the land owners and the tenants and hence reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was made by Land Acquisition Collector to Civil Revision No.129 of 2011 (O&M) -2- learned District Judge for adjudication. The same was decided holding that the tenants are entitled to ¾th share of compensation and the land owners are entitled to ¼th share of compensation. Feeling aggrieved against the said award passed by reference Court, petitioner alongwith respondent no.4 filed Regular First Appeal No.1153 of 1997 before this Court. While admitting the said appeal, a coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order on 22.7.1997:- “ After hearing the counsel, I am of the view that Order dated 20.5.1997 whereby payment of compensation was stayed deserves to be made absolute. Accordingly, Order dated 20.5.1997 is made absolute. However, having regard to the interest of the parties, the executing Court is directed to deposit the amount of compensation lying deposited with it, in a Fixed Deposit Receipt earning maximum interest. The main appeal be set down for final disposal in the week commencing 3.11.1997. In case Review Petition of the respondent pending before the Financial Commissioner against the Order of ejectment is decided before 3.11.1997, counsel for the respondent shall be at liberty to make a mention for pre-poning of the date of hearing of the appeal.” The said appeal was ultimately decided by this Court holding that tenants were not entitled to any compensation qua the acquired land. Hence, on the application of petitioner and respondent no.4, Court ordered to disburse the amount of FDRs to petitioner and respondent no.4 and the same were actually disbursed. Now only dispute remains regarding payment of interest. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that interest should have been paid to petitioner and respondent no.4 at the rate which is admissible for deposits by a senior citizen. However, the said plea cannot be accepted as when the amount was deposited, there was still dispute regarding disbursement of the amount between petitioner and respondent no.4 on the one hand and the tenants on the other hand and hence the amount could not be deposited in the name of petitioner and Civil Revision No.129 of 2011 (O&M) -3- respondent no.4. The amount was rightly deposited in the name of learned District Judge, Hisar and the maximum interest prevalent at that time has already been given by the bank on the said deposit. Learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, has rightly held that interest cannot be ordered to be paid to the present petitioner of the category of senior citizens. There is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by learned Additional District Judge on this point is, in any way, illegal. Hence, so far as dismissal of application of petitioner by learned Additional District Judge on this point is concerned, no interference by this Court is called for. It is further contended that the second application filed by the petitioner and respondent no.4 is for issuance of tax deducted at source certificates in the name of petitioner and respondent no.4 and however, the same have been issued by the bank in the name of District Judge. Hence, it is contended that on the basis of tax deducted at source certificate issued in the name of District Judge, petitioner and respondent no.4 cannot claim the benefit of income tax from the department and hence the said application has not been properly decided by learned Additional District Judge. Perusal of order passed by learned Additional District Judge shows that the said application was disposed of with the following observations:- “ In its reply the banks concerned, detailed how the TDS certificates were issued. Few of TDS certificates were in the name of District Judge and few were in the name of individual and if the applicants wants any of the TDS certificate which is on judicial record, he/she is permitted to get the same released, in original, subject to substitution of same with the photocopy on record.” There is force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the application has not been properly decided by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar. The order is a vague one. Hence, learned Additional District Judge, Hisar is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner and respondent no.4 in this regard and appropriate order be Civil Revision No.129 of 2011 (O&M) -4- passed regarding issuance of tax deducted at source certificates in favour of the individuals, i.e., petitioner and respondent no.4, as per law. The present revision petition is disposed of accordingly. 7.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge