R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: October 16, 2008 (1) R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989 Parkash and others ..Appellants v. Kale Ram (deceased) through L.Rs. and others .. Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 2622 of 1989 Kale Ram (deceased) through L.Rs. .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Harminderjit Singh, Advocate for the appellants in R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989. Mr. Manmohan Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Adish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants in R.F.A. No. 2622 of 1989 and for respondent No.1 in R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989. Mr. Sarwan Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. N.S. Rapri, Advocate for Parkash, Jagdish and Jeetu. Mr. H.S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Mr. A. P. Bhandari, Advocate for respondent No.4 in R.F.A. No. 2622 of 1989. .. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two appeals bearing Nos. 1473 and 2622 of 1989 arising out of the same acquisition. R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989 [2] R.F.A. No. 2622 of 1989 has been filed by Kale Ram, who claimed himself to be the power of attorney holder of the owners of land. The power of attorney was executed on 6.6.1962 (registered on 7.6.1962) which, according to the counsel for the appellants, is irrevocable in nature. The appellants in R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989 are the recorded owners of the land who had executed the power of attorney in favour of Kale Ram regarding the land in dispute on 6.6.1962 after taking a sum of Rs. 80,000/- which, according to them, was revoked on 21.1.1985. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 37.3 acres situated in Village Anangpur, Hadbast No.2, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Gurgaon was acquired vide notification dated 9.7.1973 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for development and utilisation of land as residential area in Sector 37, Faridabad. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 488/- per Biswa Karm for Chahi, Nammor, Gair Mumkin Chahi, Banjar Kadeem, Gair Mumkin road and Gair Mumkin Factory and Rs. 250/- per biswa for Gair Mumkin land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value of the land at Rs. 18/- per square yard for all kinds of land. Learned counsel appearing for Kale Ram-appellant submitted that a bare perusal of the power of attorney dated 6.6.1962 executed by the appellants in R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989 shows that the same was irrevocable in nature. In fact, the entire sale consideration for the land had been paid by Kale Ram and the title of the property stood transferred in his name. There was no question of revocation of the power of attorney executed way back on 6.6.1962 in his favour on 21.1.1985 and that too nearly 13 years after the acquisition with the allegation that the owners apprehended misappropriation of the property in the hands of power of attorney holder. Relying upon Dr. G.H. Grant v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 237; Seth Loon Karan Sethiya v. Ivan E. John and others, AIR 1969 SC 73; Himalaya Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho (dead) by L.Rs., AIR 1980 SC 1118; Niranjan Singh and others v. Amar Singh and others, AIR 1984 SC 250; Ramesh Mohan and another v. Raj Krishan and others, 1984 PLR 211; Murti Shree Ram Chander Ji Maharaj v. State of Haryana, 1987 PLJ 131; Smt. Ambey Devi v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 1996 SC 1513; Dattaram Deu Desai and others v. Shri Nirakar Devasthan of Palolem and others, 2000 AIHC R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989 [3] 197; Bhau Krishna Shinde v. Vatsala Bhau Dhamale and others, 2000(2) AILACC 203; and Pushpa Devi and another v. Smt. Sarti Devi and others, (2002) 1 LACC 514, the submission is that the application filed by the owners of the land for being impleaded as party was not maintainable as such. As regards the determination of compensation is concerned, reliance was placed upon a judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 1724 of 1979 –M/s Raj Dhani Land and Finance v. State of Haryana, decided on 24.12.1993, where for acquisition of land vide same notification, the value of the acquired land was assessed at Rs. 24/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the appellants in R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989 submitted that they are the true owners of the land. There was nothing wrong in their filing the application before the Court below for being impleaded/ substituted as the petitioners as after revocation of the power of attorney in favour of Kale Ram, they could very well prosecute their case themselves. It is not in dispute that in the revenue records they were shown to be the owners of the land under acquisition. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court in Indraj v. Sham Lal, AIR 1993 P&H 95 wherein it was held that in a reference under Section 30 of the Act invoking the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a person can seek his impleadment as a party to the dispute. Learned counsel for the State did not dispute the fact that compensation for the acquired land was further enhanced by this Court in M/s Raj Dhani Land and Finance's case (supra), where the same was assessed at Rs. 24/- per square yard. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the record shows that the amount of compensation, as determined by the Collector, was paid to Kale Ram as attorney holder vide voucher No. 3546 dated 29.10.1976. It is only Kale Ram who filed objections before the Collector, which were referred to the learned Court below vide memo dated 28.8.1984. During the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Court below, the appellants in R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989, being the recorded owners of the land, filed application dated 24.1.1985 for discharging Kale Ram and his counsel from the case with the contention that they no more authorise Kale Ram to continue with the case as the power of attorney in his favour had already been cancelled on 21.1.1985. The application was contested by Kale Ram with the plea that the general power of attorney dated 6.6.1962 was executed by the owners of the property in his favour after receiving Rs. 80,000/- as consideration for selling the land which thereafter belonged to him. It was further stated that power of R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989 [4] attorney was irrevocable. It was also agreed upon between the parties that Kale Ram will be entitled to receive the entire consideration on sale of the land. As the reference has been made on the request of Kale Ram, the Court was not entitled to enhance the scope thereof on any application by a third person regarding entitlement or apportionment of the compensation. In addition to this, application was also filed by Des Raj claiming himself to be a lessee on the property for being impleaded as party to the proceedings. The Court below only permitted the applicants to be intervenors in the proceedings as there was neither any application by the appellants in R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989, who claimed themselves to be the owners of the land objecting to the amount of compensation paid by the Collector nor there was any application by any of the parties seeking apportionment of the compensation. The learned court below on the issue regarding entitlement of compensation directed that the question regarding title needs to be decided by the Civil Court of the competent jurisdiction, whereas as regards the value of the acquired land, it was determined at Rs. 18/- per square yard. As far as assessment of the value of the land is concerned, the parties are not in dispute that the issue has already been gone into by this Court in M/s Raj Dhani Land and Finance's case (supra), where value of the acquired land has been assessed at Rs. 24/- per square yard. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the aforesaid case, the value of the acquired land is assessed at Rs. 24/- per square yard. The appellants shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeals to that extent are accepted with costs. As far as the claim of the parties with regard to entitlement to claim compensation is concerned, number of judgments, as referred to above, have been cited opining as to whether the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable in the proceedings under the Act or not. However, the dispute in the present case, in my considered opinion, is not simplicitor for impleading as a party to the proceedings under the Act during the pendency of the reference before the Court below. It is a case where Kale Ram was representing himself to be the owner of the acquired land on the basis of an irrevocable power of attorney executed in his favour by the owners thereof on 6.6.1962 after receipt of a sum of Rs. 80,000/- from him. It is not in dispute that the Collector had paid the amount of compensation to him, though as attorney. Objections were also filed by him. It was during the pendency of the reference before the Court below that an application was filed by Parkash, Jagdish and Jeetu for discharging Kale Ram from the proceedings and instead permitting them to proceed with the case. It was on the R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989 [5] basis of revocation deed dated 21.1.1985 cancelling the power of attorney executed in favour of Kale Ram on 6.6.1962. It is relevant to add here that the land in question was acquired by the State vide notification dated 9.7.1973. The relevant terms of the power of attorney in favour of Kale Ram are extracted below: “The said GPA is competent to enter into any bargain in consideration of any amount with any person in respect of the said land. He can purchase stamp paper for sale deed and get the sale deed executed and present the same after signing or thumb mark the same before the Sub Registrar concerned for registration and he can receive the consideration money and get the said lease deed and also the sale deed according to rules and have mutation entered on our behalf, appear before the revenue officer and give the statement to have the mutation sanctioned. He can give any application or affidavit. As we were in need of money we have received Rs. 80,000/- from the G.P.A. against receipt. The said GPA will have no power to sell our land for a lesser amount and the amount which he gets in excess he will retain that amount as his commission. We the said executant have no future right to get any share. This Power of Attorney will be irrevocable.” In the cancellation deed (Ex. R.6) executed by Parkash, Jagdish and Jeetu, it was mentioned that they had lost faith in attorney- Kale Ram and it was apprehended that he would misappropriate the property and accordingly they did not want to continue him as attorney. From the facts of the case, it is evident that it is not a case simplicitor for impleading a person interested as party to the reference. The fact is that the owners were already party in the proceedings. Kale Ram was claiming himself to be the owner of the property on the basis of irrevocable power of attorney, whereas Parkash, Jagdish and Jeetu claimed ownership stating that they had revoked the power of attorney. The issue involved here would be the interpretation of the power of attorney dated 6.6.1962 (Ex. P.1) regarding the nature thereof and the rights flowing therefrom and also as to whether the same could be cancelled and the effect of cancellation thereof 19 years after the execution thereof and 12 years after the acquisition of the land in question is required to be gone into. It would not be appropriate for this Court to decide this intricate question in the reference proceedings for enhancement in the value of the acquired land. The learned Court below has rightly relegated the parties to the Civil Court for the purpose. Accordingly, the findings of the Court below on other issues are upheld. R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989 [6] During the pendency of the appeal before this Court, Kale Ram was permitted to withdraw the amount of compensation as determined by the learned Court below on furnishing of security to the satisfaction of the Court. Kale Ram shall be entitled to retain the amount of compensation paid to him by interim order passed by this Court. However, the same shall be subject to final determination of rights of the parties by the Court of competent jurisdiction. As regards the enhanced compensation is concerned, the same shall be deposited by the State with the Executing Court which, in turn, shall get the same deposited in a fixed deposit with the nationalised bank carrying maximum rate of interest. The amount so deposited shall be disbursed to the person who is held entitled to claim the same by the Court of competent jurisdiction. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge October 16, 2008 mk