CR No.650 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL REVISION NO.650 OF 2011 DATE OF DECISION: FABRUARY 27, 2012 Mukhtiar Singh .... Petitioner Versus Kaithal Improvement Trust, Kaithal .... Respondent CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. * * * * PRESENT: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J. P. Dhull, Advocate for respondent. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Claimant Mukhtiar Singh has assailed order dated 11.12.2009 Annexure P-2 passed by learned District Judge/President, Improvement Trust Tribunal, Kaithal (in short, the Tribunal), by filing instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (in short, the Punjab Act), Tribunals were constituted to decide references for determination of compensation for properties acquired for schemes sanctioned under the Punjab Act. Accordingly, reference for enhancement of compensation was made to the Tribunal at the instance of the petitioner for determination of compensation of his property acquired under scheme of respondent-Kaithal Improvement Trust, Kaithal (in short, the Trust). During pendency of the said reference, the Haryana Town Improvement Act, 2008 (in short, the Haryana Act) has been enacted and vide Section 106 of the Haryana Act, the Punjab Act in its application to State of Haryana has been repealed. Accordingly, CR No.650 of 2011 -2- State Government vide letter dated 17.09.2009 intimated this Court that there is no provision of Tribunal under the Haryana Act whereas the Punjab Act stands repealed in its application to Haryana. This letter of State Government was forwarded to District and Sessions Judge, Kaithal by this Court vide letter dated 07.12.2009. Accordingly, learned District Judge/President of the Tribunal vide impugned order Annexure P-2 returned the reference to the Trust for resorting to legal remedy available to it under the Haryana Act. Claimant has challenged aforesaid order of the Tribunal by filing this revision petition. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of Section 106(2) of the Haryana Act, reference shall be deemed to have been instituted under the Haryana Act and therefore, the Tribunal instead of returning the reference to the Trust should have sent the reference to Civil Court in view of Section 63 of the Haryana Act. Counsel for respondent, on the other hand, contended that under the Haryana Act, the Tribunal no longer exists or subsists and, therefore, the reference has rightly been returned by the Tribunal. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Section 106 and Section 63 of the Haryana Act are reproduced hereunder: “106. (1) The Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (Act 4 of 1922), in its application to the State of Haryana, is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken or any proceeding instituted under the Act so repealed and the rules made thereunder, shall be deemed to have been done or taken or CR No.650 of 2011 -3- instituted under this Act. (3) All references in any enactments to any of the provisions of the Act so repealed shall be construed as reference to the provisions of this Act. (4) The Punjab Town Improvement Rules framed under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (Act 4 of 1922), as applicable to the State of Haryana, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, shall be deemed to have been framed under this Act till new rules are framed under this Act.” “63 (1) If any question or dispute arises between the trust and any person as to the sufficiency of any compensation paid or proposed to be paid to him under Sections 34 or 104, the matter shall be determined by the civil court, if approached by the claimant within a period of three months from the date on which he was informed of the decision of the trust fixing the amount of compensation to be paid to him or of the rejection of his claim to compensation by the trust: Provided that the civil court shall not entertain the application of any claimant who has not applied to the trust for compensation within three months of the date on which his claim to compensation accrued. (2) The provisions of sections 5, 6 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Act 36 of 1963), shall be applicable in determining whether any claim shall be entertained. (3) If a reference to the civil court be not made within the period specified in sub-Section (I), the decision of the trust shall be final.” Bare perusal of Section 106(2) of the Haryana Act reveals that CR No.650 of 2011 -4- any proceeding instituted under the Punjab Act shall be deemed to have been instituted under the Haryana Act. Consequently, the reference which was validly instituted under the Punjab Act shall be deemed to have been instituted under the Haryana Act. Under the Punjab Act, the reference had to be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal constituted under the Punjab Act. However, under Section 63 of the Haryana Act, reference lies to Civil Court for determination of the compensation. Consequently the reference which was instituted under the Punjab Act shall, in view of Section 106(2) read with Section 63 of the Haryana Act, be deemed to have been instituted in the Civil Court. In view of this legal position, impugned order of the Tribunal returning the reference to the Trust cannot be sustained being perverse and illegal and suffering from jurisdictional error. Since under the aforesaid provisions of the Haryana Act, the reference is deemed to have been instituted in the Civil Court, the Tribunal has to send the reference to the Civil Court for proceeding further in accordance with law. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-2 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to send the reference to Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for proceeding further with the reference in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal 27.03.2012 for further directions. The reference if already returned by the Tribunal to the Trust, pursuant to impugned order, shall be re-submitted by the Trust before the Tribunal for sending the same to the Civil Court. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 27.02.2012 'raj'