HARJEET SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 26.8.1993, passed by the learned court below, whereby the reference under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), has been dismissed holding that the court, while exercising jurisdiction under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act, is not competent to go into the issue of title of the property in dispute. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the property in dispute was owned by Hem Singh. The same was gifted by him to Gurbachan Singh by way of registered gift deed dated 3.4.1946 (Ex. A7). Gurbachan Singh migrated to Kenya and died on 3.5.1981. The appellants being his son and widow were granted letters of administration by the court of competent jurisdiction of Kenya where they were staying. In terms thereof, the property located at Amritsar was inherited by the appellants. When appellant No. 1 came to India on 19.4.1989, he came to know that one Gurnam Singh got executed sale deed of the property in question in favour of respondent No. 3-Amrik Singh on 3.5.1988 on the basis of a forged power of attorney allegedly executed by the appellants in his favour on 7.11.1985. As subsequent to the sale deed, the property in question was acquired by the State, he got the compensation for the same. After the appellants came to India, they found that the property owned by them was fraudulently transferred on the basis of a forged power of attorney. The objections were filed under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act before the Collector against the award dated 27.6.1989. The aforesaid objections have been dismissed by the learned court below holding that the court is not competent to go into the issue of title of the property and find out as to whether the sale deed executed in favour of respondent No. 3 is a result of fraud or otherwise. The submission is that the Reference Court under Section 30 of the Act is fully competent to go into the issue of title of the property, in question. In support of his plea, reliance was placed upon Dr. G.H. Grant v. The State of Bihar, 1966 AIR(SC) 237 Karnail Singh v. Jagir Singh, 1984 86 PunLR 731; Vinay Kumar and others v. Parshotam Dass and others, 1992 PunLJ 77; Gurcharan Singh v. Sadhu Ram and others, 1994 PunLJ 462; Arulmighu Lakshminarasimhaswamy Temple Singirigudi v. Union of India and others, 1996 6 SCC 408and Sri Prasada Rao Mikkilineni and others v. State of A.P. and others, 2000 9 SCC 371.

(2.) Though memo of appearance dated 16.11.1994 was filed by Shri S.S. Dalal, Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 3 on 17.11.1994, however, at the time of hearing, no one has appeared.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.