CHAND RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 22 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 7.2.1992 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi by which certain directions were given to the Land Acquisition Collector. The brief facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner was the owner of agricultural land in the reveue estate of Bharthal, New Delhi. The land was acquired by the Government by an Award made by the Land Acquisition Collector. The petitioner being dis-satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, preferred a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Addl. District Judge for enhantcemet of the compensation was enhanced by the District Judge but the matter did not rest there. Petitioer was still not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the District Judge and thereafter he approached Delhi High Court under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act by means of a Regular First Appeal for further enhancement of the compensation. By the judgment and decree dated 25.9.1990, High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 21,000.00 per bigha. The petitioner received the compensation from the Land Acquisition Collector awarded by him and as by the District Judge but the compensation enhanced by the High court was not paid to the petitioner. The petitioner filed execution application before the Addl. District Judge for realisation of the compensation in terms of the decree passed by the High Court. The matter came up before the Addl. District Judge on 7.2.92 and he passed the following order:

(2.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Addl. District Judge, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India for modification of the order dated 7.2.1992 so as to delete the portion of the order by which the Court directed the Land Acquisition Collector to deduct the Income .Tax in compliance of Section 194-A of the Income Tax Act and further directed to the .petitioner to file required declaration before the Land Acquisition Collector. The 'grounds on which the modification of the order is sought are mentioned in the petition. Notice of this petition was given to the respondents as well as to the Income Tax department.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Mann appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a decree holder and the Land Acquisition Collector is the judgment debtor and the executing court had no power and jurisdiction to direct the L.A.C. to deduct any amout on account of Income Tax from the decretal amount. It was urged that by virtues of Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, Civil Procedure Code has been made applicable to all proceedings before the court under the Land Acquisition Act, the award given by the District' Judge is deemed to be a decree and in view of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, the decision of the High Court in the appeal is a decree and such decree has to be executed like a decree passed by the Civil Court. The Add). District Judge had no jurisdiction to give any direction to the judgment debtor to deduct the amount on account of income tax as contemplated under Section 194-A of the Income Tax Act. The direction is without jurisdiction. Moreover, the Addl. District Judge could not direct the claimant/decree bolder to approach the Collector for filing appropriate affidavit and receive the compensation from him. It was the function of the court to give direction to the Land Acquisition Collector to deposit the amount in court and on such deposit the court should have paid the amount to the decree bolder.