RAGHUBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, in this revision petition, is impugning the order of the Additional District Judge, Panipat, staying the proceedings filed by the respondents under Section 30 read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that the land owned by the petitioner was acquired by the State of Haryana and the Land Acquisition Officer announced the award of compensation in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2, Inderjit, raised a dispute under Section 30 of the Act by filing a combined petition under Section 18 read with Section 30 of the Act. The Collector made reference to the Additional District Judge, Panipat, who registered the case as L. A. C. No. 133 of 1992. This reference under Section 30 of the Act was made by respondent No. 2 on 8. 5. 1992. After the matter was referred to the Addl. District Judge, respondent No. 2 filed a civil suit on 14. 9. 1992. After the matter was referred to the Addl. District Judge, respondent No. 2 filed a civil suit on 14. 9. 1992 claiming title to the suit land. After filing of the suit, respondent No. 2 filed an application on 29. 10. 1992 before the Additional District Judge for staying proceedings under Section 30 of the Act. On his application, the Additional Judge District stayed the proceedings vide his order dated 21. 12. 1992, which is now being challenged by the petitioner in the present revision petition.

(3.) MR. S. C. Kapoor, Sr. Advocate, counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Additional District Judge ought not to have stayed the proceedings as the matter with regard to title can be decided under Section 30 of the Act. According to him, the suit was filed in order to harass the petitioner and to delay the payment of compensation. In reply, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, Inderjit. submitted that respondent No. 2 in civil suit is seeking declaration not only against the petitioner, but also against the persons who are not parties to petition under Section 30 of the Act and, therefore, proceedings under Section 30 of the Act were rightly stayed by the Additional District Judge.