CR No.5880 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CR No.5880 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.09.2010 Mangat Rai Gagneja and others ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate for the petitioners. ... Alok Singh, J. In the present petition, the sole question arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether alleged lessees can claim apportionment of their share in the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the act) ? In nut shell, case of the petitioners, inter-alia, is that the State of Haryana vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, dated 16.8.1983 sought to acquire 374 Kanals 12 Marla of land belonging to the decree holder - respondent No.3 herein for establishment of Auto Vehicles and Commercial Market for Municipal Committee, Sirsa. Thereafter, CR No.5880 of 2010 2 notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 9.11.1984. Possession of the acquired land was taken on 5.1.1985. Award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 18.3.1985. Respondent No.3 filed reference under Section 18 of the Act. In the reference, the Additional District Judge, Sirsa, enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per acre for Chahi/Gair Mumkin land and Rs.30,000/- per acre for Nehri land, besides other statutory benefits under Section 23(2) read with Section 23(1A) of the Act, with interest under Section 28 of the Act. Petitioner No.1 and one Chamba Ram also filed their references under Section 18 of the Act, claiming apportionment of the compensation contending themselves to be lessees of some portion of the land in question. Their references were dismissed. Appeals and Cross-objections were filed before this Court, which were decided by this Court vide judgement dated 2.6.1988, thereby assessing the market value of the land in question as Rs.40/- per sq. yrd. along with all other statutory benefits. This Court also directed that out of the compensation so assessed, Mangat Rai Gagneja and Chamba Ram shall be entitled to 14th share of the compensation for the land under their lease. LPA was filed before the Division Bench of this Court in which market value of the land was enhanced to Rs.48/- per sq. yrd. alongwith all other statutory benefits. However, order of the learned Single Judge dated 2.6.1988 was confirmed to the extent that lessees Mangat Rai Gagneja and Chamba Ram are entitled to 14th share of compensation. Mangat Rai Gagneja and Chamba Ram filed Civil Appeal No.8879-80 of 1996 before the Apex Court, which was partly allowed by the Apex Court vide order dated 22.4.1996, holding that the lessees Mangat Rai Gagneja and Chamba Ram shall be entitled to 3/4th share of the compensation qua the land under CR No.5880 of 2010 3 their lease. Execution petition was filed before the Executing Court by the decree holder - respondent No.3 herein. In the Execution petition, Mangat Rai Gagneja and Chamba Ram were paid ¾th compensation qua the land in their possession as lessee. It is important to mention here that interest of Mangat Rai Gagneja as a lessee in possession of 112 Kanals and 10 Marlas and Chamba Ram as lessee in possession of 93 Kanals 5 Marla, is not involved herein since they have been paid their share as directed by the Apex Court vide judgement dated 22.4.1996. In the Execution, for rest of the 1/4th share of compensation relating to 205 Kanals and 15 Marla and the entire compensation of the remaining 169 Kanals and 7 Marla of the total land acquired, carried out by respondent No.3 - decree holder, present objections were preferred by the petitioners herein stating that they are lessees over the different portions of the land, hence, as per the decision of the Apex Court dated 22.4.1996 in Civil Appeal Nos.8879-80 of 1996, they may also be awarded 3/4th of the compensation being lessees. Undisputedly, the objectors/present petitioners neither filed a reference for apportionment claiming themselves as lessees over other parts of the land nor preferred any appeal nor they were party either in the appeal or in the LPA or in the Civil Appeal before the Apex Court. The Executing Court vide impugned order dated 8.3.2010 rejected the objections of the present petitioners having observed that benefit of the judgement of the Apex Court dated 22.4.1996 in an appeal filed by petitioner No.1 and Chamba Ram pertaining to other piece of land as lessee thereof, cannot be CR No.5880 of 2010 4 extended to the present petitioners claiming themselves to be lessees of the other parts of the land acquired. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that their possession is recorded as lessees over the land acquired in the revenue records, hence they may also be given 3/4th share in the compensation as was granted to petitioner No.1 and Chamba Ram for other parts of the total land acquired. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that the Executing Court is competent to disburse the compensation in apportionment to the lessees. The Apex Court in the matter of Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs. Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran and another, 2003(5) SCC 561 has held that the Reference Court gets jurisdiction only if the matter is referred to it under Section 18 or 30 of the Act and the Land Acquisition Officer or the Civil Court shall decide only those questions, which are referred to it. It is further held by the Apex Court that the Reference Court cannot widen the scope and decide the matter, which are not referred to it. In the opinion of this Court, if the Reference Court has no jurisdiction to decide as to whether lessees of the land acquired are entitled to the apportionment of compensation in the absence of any reference, then of course the Executing Court, executing the award, shall also have no jurisdiction to decide the question of apportionment on the request of the so- called lessees, who never made any reference. It is important to point out herein that the judgement of the Apex Court in Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti’s case (supra) was referred to and relied upon by the Apex Court in the latter judgement in the case of Shyamali Dass Vs. Illa Chowdhry and others, 2006(12) SCC 300, wherein the Apex Court has CR No.5880 of 2010 5 held that the Land Acquisition Act is a complete Code by itself, which provides for remedies not only to those whose lands have been acquired but also to those who claim the awarded amount or any apportionment thereof. Petitioners should have resorted to the remedy available under the Act by making the reference. Since, petitioners did not make any reference, hence they cannot claim any amount of compensation claiming themselves to be lessees during the execution. As observed hereinabove, none of the petitioners ever claimed apportionment of the compensation by making the reference. They were not party before the Reference Court, Appellate Court or before the Apex Court. In opinion of this Court, the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree passed by the competent Court. The Executing Court is not competent to look into the question as to whether present objectors/petitioners were also lessees and were in possession at the time of acquisition of the land and to direct apportionment of the compensation settled in the reference and the appeals derived therefrom. The Executing Court is bound to execute the decree in favour of the decree holder – respondent No.3 herein. The Executing Court has absolutely no jurisdiction to direct that the awarded amount should be paid to third person claiming to be lessee of the land acquired. Petitioners also claimed in the petition that they have purchased actionable claim of the lessee, hence they are entitled to file present petition. Present petition seems to be abuse of process of law and by filing the objections, petitioners have unnecessarily deprived the decree holder to get the compensation, which remained unpaid to the decree holder for long in view of the pendency of the present objections. In the opinion of this Court, exemplary costs should be imposed against the petitioners for CR No.5880 of 2010 6 abusing the process of law. Petition is devoid of merit and hence, is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-. Petitioners shall pay the aforesaid costs to the Fee Legal Aid Committee of this Court within four weeks from today. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 14.09.2010 sk.