IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.M.No.3664-CII of 2009 and C.R.No.4847 of 2008 Date of order : 13.2.2009 Balbir Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Banyana, Advocate for respondents No.3 & 4. JASWANT SINGH,J(ORAL) C.M.No.3664-CII of 2009 Application is allowed. Additional affidavit is taken on record. C.R.No.4847 of 2008 Petitioner-Balbir Singh has filed this present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside order dated 26.7.2008 (Annexure P.8) passed by Additional District Judge, Panipat whereby the objections filed by respondent No.3-Jaswinder Singh and respondent No.4-Saroj Devi/decree holders and son and daughter of the petitioner have been accepted and it has been ordered that a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- received as amount of compensation on account of the construction of the shops on the acquired land shall be disbursed in equal shares, as per the award/judgment dated 28.9.2002 (Annexure P.5) passed by the learned Reference Court-Additional District Judge, Panipat. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the land C.R.No.4847 of 2008 #2# was exclusively owned by the petitioner, who had constructed the shops on the land for which he, alone, is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. In support, he has relied on certain documents placed on record. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, who are son and daughter of the petitioner, by referring to an affidavit filed by Jaswinder Malik dated 8.1.2009, has contended that the order passed by the learned Executing Court is perfectly legal and justified. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merit. It is apparent from the record that in pursuance of the family settlement, a suit for declaration was filed by the family members of the petitioner including respondents No.3 & 4 i.e son Jaswinder Singh and daughter Saroj Devi against the petitioner-Balbir Singh that they had become owners of the suit property as per Clause A to H mentioned in the head note of the plaint. In that suit, petitioner Balbir Singh appeared and suffered a statement that he was owner in possession of the land described under Clause G, which is as under: “Land measuring 1K-12M owned & possessed by Deft. (Balbir Singh) comprising in: i) 1K-3M comprising in Khewat No.211 min. Khatoni No.290 min. Rect. No.17 Killa No.24 min. West (1-3). ii) 0K-9M as 9/140 share of 7K-0M comprising in Khewat No.211/1 Khatoni No.290/1 Rect. No.17 Killa No.23/2 (7-0).” Accordingly, suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated C.R.No.4847 of 2008 #3# 18.9.1993, (Annexure R.3/1) attached with the affidavit dated 8.1.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the shops for which the compensation has been awarded, are situated in the land comprised in Killa No.23/2, therefore, being the sole owner of the land of the shops constructed thereupon entitled to the release of the amount of compensation of shops. A careful reading of Sub clause (ii) of Clause G reveals that the petitioner is shown as owner of 9 Marla out of the total land of 7 Kanal as 9/140th share of the land. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that he, alone, is the exclusive owner of the land, where shops are constructed. In any case, learned Executing Court has held that the parties are entitled to the compensation as per the decree dated 28.9.2002 (Annexure P.5) in equal shares. No ground is made out to interfere. Dismissed. February 13, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE