VINAY KUMAR Vs. PARSHOTAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the owners Vinay Kumar and others, filed against the judgment of Additional District Judge, Kama], dated March 12, 1986, whereby several land acquisition reference filed under sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') were disposed of the present appeal relates to Land Acquisition Case No. 152/4 of 1983 (Parshotam Dass and others V. State of Haryana and others.) filed under section 30 of the Act. The Additional District Judge held Parshotam Dass and others as tenants over the land measuring 8 Kanals 8 Marlas comprised in Khasra Nos. 9094 and 9095 and thus allowed 1/3rd out of the compensation for the acquired land. On an objection being raised during arguments that Amar Nath, a co-owner of the land in dispute was not impleaded as a party, C.M. No. 2192-Cl of 1989 was filed on behalf of Parshotam Dass and others, for impleading Amar Nath Kapur as a party. However, subsequently the said application was withdrawn and was thus dismissed on July 19, 1990 by this Court.

(2.) State of Haryana issued notification under section 4 of the Act on October 17, 1978, intending to acquire 80.49 Acres of land. Subsequently, 79.58 Acres of land was acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector announced Award on June 2, 1982, fixing market value at different rates keeping in view the quality of the land. The landowners were not satisfied with the amount of compensation fixed. They moved different references under section 18 of the Act. Amar Nath Kaput and his children Viney Kumar and others moved one such reference under section 18 of the Act (Land Acquisition case No. 4/4/ of 1985). As already stated above, Parchotam Dass and others filed reference under sections 18 and as well as 30 of the Act claiming themselves to be tenants over the land in dispute (8 Kanals 8 Marlas) comprising two Khasra Nos. 9094/5-4 and 9095/3-4 the present appeal relates to the latter case. The Additional District Judge allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/- per square yard. The High Court disposed of appeals fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 32/- per square yard. In the case of Parshotam Dass and others they were held to be tenants and 1/3rd of the compensation was ordered to be paid to them. Vinay Kumar and others, children of Amar Nath Kapur, have filed the present appeal.

(3.) Shri M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that the reference made on behalf of Parshotam Dass and others was liable to be dismissed on the short ground that Amar Nath one of the co-owners was not impleaded as a party. At the preliminary stage, objection in this respect was taken in the written statement filed by the appellants and an issue was also framed. In appeal also application was filed by Parshotam Dass and others form impleading Amar Nath as a party, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn as-stated above. Since Amar Nath is not a party in the present proceedings, reference filed by Parshotam Dass and others under section 30 of the Act was liable to be dismissed. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab V. Nathu Ram, 1962 AIR(SC) 89. The ratio of the decision aforesaid is not at all applicable to the facts of the case in hand. In that case two brothers jointly owned the land which was acquired. The District Judge decided the reference filed under section 18 of the Act, State of Punjab filed the appeal. One of the joint owners died. Then the question arose as to whether the appeal had abated ? The Supreme Court held that the appeal could not proceed against the other brother as legal representatives of the deceased brother were not brought on the record. Abatement of the appeal against one of the brothers resulted in total abatement as decree/judgment against the deceased brother had become final and contradictory decree could not be passed subsequently in the appeal. That was a case under Order 22 Rules 4 and 11 read with )Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sub-sequently, after the said decision. Code of Civil Procedure was amended. Now on account of the death of one of the respondents appeal is not to abate but the appeal is to reach its end by decision on merits. It is left to the legal heirs of such deceased-respondent to be impleaded as parties.