IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2316 of 1992 DATE OF DECISION : 02.02.2011 Anil Sood and others .... PETITIONERS Versus Urinder Singh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. K.D.S. Sidhu, DAG, Punjab, for respondents No.5 to 7. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioners, who are legal heirs of Smt. Shakuntla Devi, have filed this revision petition against the order dated 22.5.1992, passed by the Reference Court in a reference filed by respondents No.1 to 4. Undisputedly, in the present case, certain land, for which the dispute is between the parties, was acquired by the Government of Punjab, vide notification dated 2.6.1978, for setting up a new sabzi market at Kapurthala. The said land (measuring 68 kanals 4 marlas), for which a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter CR No. 2316 of 1992 -2- referred to as `the Act') was filed by respondents No.1 to 4, was part of the aforesaid acquisition. Respondents No.1 to 4 claimed themselves to be in possession of the said land as perpetual lessees for 99 years, regarding which the lease was executed in their favour by Smt. Shakuntla Devi (predecessor of the petitioners). The reference was finally decided by the Reference Court vide judgment dated 6.10.1983. In appeal filed by respondents No.1 to 4, while reducing the amount of compensation, the learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated September 4, 1989, remitted the matter for adjudication of the issue with regard to apportionment of the compensation between the owner and the perpetual lessees. When the matter came back to the Reference Court, Smt. Shakuntla Devi moved an application for becoming party in the reference, as earlier she did not submit any application either under Section 30 or Section 18 of the Act. Her application was allowed vide order dated 9.2.1983 and thereafter, the case was adjourned for evidence of the respective parties. When the evidence was in progress and respondents No.1 to 4 were producing certain documents, learned counsel for Smt. Shakuntla Devi objected for the same, to which learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 submitted that Smt. Shakuntla Devi has no locus standi in the case, as she did not file any reference either under Section 30 or Section 18 of the Act. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, vide order dated 22.5.1992, the Reference Court observed that Smt. Shakuntla Devi has no locus standi to raise such objection. This order has been challenged in the present revision petition. CR No. 2316 of 1992 -3- After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that as far as the right of respondents No.1 to 4 to produce documents in support of their claim is concerned, they cannot be denied the said right. Whatsoever documentary evidence they want to lead in support of their claim, they are at liberty to produce the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners is having the only grouse against the observation of the Reference Court, whereby it has been observed that Smt. Shakuntla Devi has no locus standi. In our opinion, this observation is only with regard to the raising of objection for leading evidence by respondents No.1 to 4. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners, who are legal heirs of Smt. Shakuntla Devi, that they have no locus standi and they will not be considered for any claim in the amount of compensation, is without any base. In our opinion, the petitioners as well as respondents No.1 to 4 are at liberty to lead evidence in support of their respective claim. With this clarification, this petition is disposed of. Since the proceedings before the Reference Court were stayed by this Court, therefore, we direct the Reference Court to decide the reference in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties, within a period of six months. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 02, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE