(1.) BY this judgment I shall dispose of Civil Revision Applications Nos. 508 and 517 of 1973 which are directed against an order dated the 21st of March, 1973 of Shri r. L. Garg, Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, dismissing two applications filed by nawab Khan, the petitioner before me.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the two petitions are not in dispute and may be shortly stated. On the 26th of November, 1962, Nawab Khan petitioner executed an agreement for the sale of 193 Kanals odd of land to Bharat Bhushan respondent no. 1 for Rs. 3,80,000/- part of the price was received by the petitioner as earnest money and the balance was agreed to be paid by respondent No. 1 within a period of about one year. Possession of the land was transferred to respondent No. 1. The agreement provided that respondent No. 1 would be entitled to divide the land into plots and to sell them to third parties in whose favour the petitioner bound himself to execute sale-deeds. Another stipulation inserted in the agreement was that if the land was acquired by Government, the petitioner would be entitled to no more than Rs. 3,80,000/- (including the earnest money) out of the compensation awarded while the excess, if any, would go to respondent No. 1. The agreement was renewed on the 13th of December, 1965, and therein also the stipulation above mentioned was inserted. Thereafter the State of Haryana acquired the land and the Land Acquisition Collector awarded a sum of Rs. 5,37, 631. 90 as compensation therefor. The petitioner received payment from the collector of an amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- minus the earnest money under protest while the balance of the compensation was received by respondent No. 1, also under protest. Respondent No. 1 made to the Collector an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) objecting to the amount of compensation and requiring that the matter be referred by the Collector for determination of the Court. The Collector accepted the application in which the petitioner figured as a respondent. before the Court, the When the case came up petitioner filed a written statement admitting the allegations made by respondent No. 1 and conceding that he (the petitioner) was not entitled to anything more than Rs. 3,80,000/- in all and that the balance of the compensation was receivable by respondent No. 1. On the 4th of March, 1972, the petitioner made an application to the court seeking an amendment of the written statement so as to plead that he was entitled to the entire compensation, being the owner of the acquired land, that he did not know English (the language in which the written statement was drafted) and that the written statement, as originally filed, had not been read to him by his counsel and contained wrong admissions by which the petitioner was not bound. On the 23rd of October, 1972, the petitioner filed another application before the Court under Section 151 and Rule 10 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure asserting that he was as much interested in having the compensation enhanced as respondent No. 1 and that he (the petitioner)should be transposed in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act as a co-claimant with respondent No. 1. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed both the applications through the impugned order holding that they were dishonestly made and that by reason of the two agreements above mentioned as well as his subsequent conduct, the petitioner had ceased to be a person "who is aggrieved within the meaning of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition act. "
(3.) CIVIL Revision Application No. 508 of 1973 has been filed by the petitioner against the rejection of the prayer for amendment of the written statement while civil Revision Application No. 517 of 1973 is directed against the refusal of the learned Additional District Judge to transpose the petitioner as a co-claimant with respondent No. 1.