DHARAM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed assailing the order of an Additional District Judge (Land Acquisition Court) dated. 18.9.1997 by which he had dismissed the application of the petitioner and had allowed the application of the respondents no.2 to 6 for their substitution in place of their deceased mother Smt.Khazani Devi in a proceeding under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act pending before him.

(2.) The facts leading to this revision petition. briefly stated are that Mr.Jagdish father of the petitioner and respondents no.2 to 6 was the owner of certain agricultural land in village Rithala which was acquired by respondent no.1 Union of India Mr. Jagdish was aggrieved with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector so he preferred the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is pending before the learned Additional District Judge. On the death of Sh.Jagdish the petitioner, respondents no.2 to 6 and his widow Smt.Khazani Devi were brouaht on record as his legal representatives. Mr.Jagdish had married twice. The petitioner is the son of his first wife Smt.Bhagwani Devi. After the death of Smt.Bhagwani Devi he married her real sister Smt.Khazani Devi. Respondents no.2 to 6 were born to Smt.Khazani Devi in her marriage with late Mr.Jagdish. Respondents 2 to 6 are all married and are settled in their respective matrimonial home Smt. Khazani Devi died on 6.5.1996. The petitioner as well as respondents 2 to 6 filed two separate applications for their substitution in place of deceased Smt.Khazani Devi.

(3.) The petitioner in his application alleged that Smt.Khazani Devi had been living with him and she had all the love and affection for him as a son. She executed a relinquishement deed dated 12.4.1996 relinquishing her right to receive 1/7th share in compensation in respect of the lands of her husband. He prayed that he has become entitled to receive her share in the compensation, therefore, he should be substituted as her legal representative also. The defendants no. 2 to 6. on the other hand. wanted their substitution in place of Smt.Khazani Devi as her class-I heir of the deceased. The Additional District Judge by the impugned order rejected the application of the petitioner but had allowed the application of the respondents 2 to 6 and had substituted them as legal heirs of deceased Smt. Khazani Devi. The petitioner is aggrieved and has filed the present revision petition.