IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3972 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: July 20, 2009. Babu Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. State through LAC (ADC), Mansa & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri M.S. Rakkar, Senior Advocate with Shri A.G.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated 16.5.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge (Ad hoc)-cum-Executing Court, Mansa, whereby his application for impleadment and not to disburse 1/6th of the compensation amount payable for the acquisition of their land to Sahib Singh, has been dismissed. The petitioner (Babu Singh) and Sahib Singh are real brothers. The petitioner had 1/6th share in the agricultural land which has been subsequently acquired by the State. The petitioner is stated to have suffered a consent decree in respect of that land in favour of his brother Sahib Singh on 4.4.1985 passed by Sub Judge, Mansa in C.S. No.59 of 1985. Pursuant thereto, Sahib Singh is recorded as the owner in possession of the acquired land. It is obvious that the compensation amount has also been deposited in his name. The petitioner has challenged the above stated consent decree, inter-alia, on the grounds of fraud etc. and his civil suit is still pending. The petitioner thereafter moved the present application for his impleadment in the pending reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1940 so that he could oppose the disbursement of compensation to Sahib Singh in respect of 1/6th share which the petitioner claims to be under his ownership but has been got transferred by Sahib Singh fictitiously. The aforesaid application has been declined by the trial court. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. The trial court is right in observing that as per the revenue record, including the latest jamabandi, Sahib Singh and other respondents are duly recorded as owners of the acquired land and unless the decree dated 4.4.1985 is set aside by a competent court, the petitioner has no locus-standi to seek his impleadment in the pending reference. However, the aforesaid order shall not preclude the petitioner or for that matter the Land Acquisition Collector to plead before the reference court that the compensation amount to the extent of 1/6th share be released to Sahib Singh on furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the court so that the petitioner's alleged future rights, sub-judice in the civil suit, are not jeopardized. Dismissed. July 20, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge