DEEPIKA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for calling the record of execution petition no. 224 of 2008 titled as, "Kartar Singh and Others vs. Union of India", from the court of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Addl. District Judge (hereinafter called "ADJ"), Rohini Courts, Delhi, and to invoke the powers of superintendence of this Court in order to adjudge the legality, validity and propriety of the orders dated 08.07.2010, vide which the said execution petition was dismissed as being barred by time, and to set aside this order, as being illegal and without jurisdiction.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that a piece of land measuring 6 bighas, 2 biswas was owned by Sh. Kartar Singh, who held 50% share, and Joginder Kumar, Deep Chand (deceased) and Ramesh Kumar (deceased father of the Petitioner), who jointly held the rest of the 50% share. In the year 1981, the Land Acquisition Controller (hereinafter referred to as "LAC") passed an award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called "the Act") with respect to the above mentioned piece of land. Reference was subsequently made u/s 18 of the Act in 1984, and the Reference Court decided the same by enhancing the compensation and granting solatium and interest on the said compensation amount. THE owners, being unsatisfied with the order of the Reference Court, preferred an RFA before this Court in the same year. Meanwhile, part payment of Rs.7155.71 was received by the claimants wherein Kartar Singh obtained 50% of the amount and Ramesh Kumar, Joginder Kumar and Deep Chand each got 1/6th share in the amount. THE RFA was then decided by the High Court in 1987, by which the amount of compensation was further enhanced and the order of the reference court was modified. Certain amendments were subsequently introduced in the Act because of which, the said compensation was increased by the Division Bench in 1989. THE petitioner was born in 1990 and the petitioner's father, who was alone pursuing the aforesaid proceedings, died in 1992. In 2003, an execution petition was filed depicting the petitioner as one of the L.Rs of deceased Ramesh Kumar. In 2008, the court of Ms. Poonam Chaudhary, ADJ directed the LAC to remit the payment of compensation, failing which attachment proceedings were to be initiated. Subsequently, on failure of the LAC to remit the amount within time, the bank account of LAC North West was attached. An amount of Rs. 68,318.95 was received and the office of the Dist. Nazir reported about the receipt of this amount through attachment. THE Dist. Nazir was further ordered to issue show cause notice to the LAC as to how the remaining decreetal amount has not been remitted.

(3.) SH. Sanjeev Kumar, learned ADJ dismissed the two applications u/s 151 of C.P.C and Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the ground that as per Section 26(2) of the Act every award passed is a "deemed decree", and thus, the award passed by the High Court in the RFA is a decree and so the provisions of Order 21of the C.P.C as also of Limitation Act will be applicable. As regards the argument on the date on which the decreetal amount was to be paid, the Ld. ADJ held that since there was no prescribed date for payment of the decreetal amount, the period of limitation will start running from the date of the decree itself. Thus, the present decree was held enforceable and executable immediately. Addressing the plea that the decree could not be executed till the deceased decree-holder's children attained majority, Ld. ADJ stated that the other decree-holders i.e. Kartar Singh, Joginder Singh and minor Deep Chand (who was represented by his mother), were majors at the time when the decree was passed, so they were capable of giving valid discharge. Hence the time of limitation will not stop running on the death of Ramesh Kumar. And finally, the Ld. ADJ dismissed the condonation of delay on the ground that Section 5 of the Limitation Act stipulates that cases under Order 21 C.P.C are specifically barred. On all these grounds the two applications have been dismissed. This order is under challenge in this court.