C.R.No.2092 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2092 of 2011 Date of Decision: 12.8.2011 Avtar Singh ....Petitioner Versus Mukhtiar Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja,Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J Petitioner, who claims himself to be the legal representative of deceased Darbara Singh-decree holder, has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.1.2011 (P.2) passed by the learned District Judge, Fast Track Court, Bathinda vide which his application dated 21.5.2010 (P.1) for bringing on record the legal heirs of Darbara Singh has been dismissed. Briefly noticed the facts are that the land of decree holders was acquired by the State of Punjab-JD vide Notification under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) and an award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector-cum-S.D.O (Civil), Bathinda on 5.10.1989. Dissatisfied with the award, land owners-decree holders filed reference under Section 18 of the Act and thereafter the matter was taken to this Court by way of R.F.A No.2643 C.R.No.2092 of 2011 #2# of 1999, which was decided on 19.9.2008 and compensation was enhanced. Thereafter, execution petition was filed, which was dismissed as partly satisfied by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 27.2.2010. Thereafter, on 21.5.2010, petitioner-Avtar Singh filed an application for being impleaded as legal representative of deceased Darbara Singh and claimed the enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.333231/-, which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order passed by the learned Executing Court is wholly erroneous and illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law as no one has come forward to dispute the validity of the registered will dated 28.9.1978 executed in favour of the petitioner-Avtar Singh by said Darbara Singh. It is further argued that the petitioner is ready to give an undertaking in the shape of a indemnity bond to the learned Executing Court in lieu of the aforesaid amount of compensation. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, I am persuaded by the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is necessary to mention here that respondents-JDs have deposited an amount of Rs.1999382/- vide cheque No.015372 dated 25.2.2010 payable to all the decree holders in which deceased Darbara Singh was having 1/6th share, which comes to be Rs.333231/-. It is not in dispute that said Darbara Singh died on 27.12.2003 and during his C.R.No.2092 of 2011 #3# life time, he is alleged to have executed a will dated 28.9.1978 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Bathinda and on the basis of said will, the petitioner-Avtar Singh is claiming himself to be the only legal representative of Darbara Singh-deceased. It further transpires that mutation No.6354 regarding the inheritance of Darbara Singh has already been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and thus in these circumstances, the petitioner is claiming that the 1/6th share amounting to Rs.333231/- lying deposited in the shape of FDR be released in favour of the petitioner on account of enhanced compensation. There is no dispute that Darbara Singh died way back on 27.12.2003. The petitioner is claiming his right as legal representative on the basis of alleged will dated 28.9.1978. RFA No.2643 of 1999 was decided on 19.9.2008 by this Court and amount was deposited by the JDs vide cheque dated 25.2.2010. An application for impleadment of the petitioner as legal representative of Darbara Singh was filed on 21.5.2010. Learned Executing Court after framing issues and examination of the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to show that he is legal representative of deceased Darbara Singh. Learned Executing Court has discarded the will on the ground that the natural heirs of deceased Darbara Singh have been wrongly ignored and that is a suspicious circumstance regarding the alleged will. Be that as it may, the will is alleged to have been registered on 28.9.1978 and none of the natural heirs of deceased Darbara Singh C.R.No.2092 of 2011 #4# has come forward to oppose the legality and validity of the alleged will. Moreover, impleadment as legal representative in the court proceedings or even in execution proceedings is not a declaration regarding the rights of a particular person that he is a legal heir of the concerned deceased person; rather the same is only for a limited purpose i.e to continue with the legal proceedings to a logical end and it can be challenged by the aggrieved party in the subsequent proceedings also. In the present case, none has come forward to claim the amount of compensation awarded in favour of said Darbara Singh. Petitioner-Avtar Singh is even ready to give an undertaking in the shape of indemnity bond at the time of release of compensation. In my opinion, taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and appropriate to allow the petitioner to be impleaded as legal representative of deceased Darbara Singh. Therefore, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.1.2011 (P.2) passed by the learned District Judge, Fast Track Court, Bathinda is set aside. It is further ordered that the compensation on the basis of application (P.1) shall be released subject to the undertaking of the petitioner in the shape of indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the learned Executing Court. It is made clear that this order may not be construed to be a declaration that the petitioner is legal heir of deceased Darbara Singh. August 12, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE C.R.No.2092 of 2011 #5#