STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RUMAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition, State of Haryana is aggrieved of the order of the execution Court, whereby respondents No. 2 and 3, Ramesh Singh and Hari Singh have been held entitled to the enhanced compensation.

(2.) IN brief, the facts, are that the State of Haryana acquired land situated in village Mawai in pursuance of notification dated 2. 8. 1973 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (briefly 'the Act')- One Rumal Singh felt dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to him by the Land Acquisition Collector. He, therefore, applied to the Collector for making reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Act. On reference, compensation was enhanced. Respondents No. 2 and 3 also applied to the Collector for making reference under Section 18 of the Act. Their case was also referred to the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, who vide order dated 3. 5. 1978 dismissed the claim petition. After the dismissal of their claim petitions and during the pendency of reference before the Additional District Judge in the case of Rumal Singh, respondent No. 2 and 3, Ramesh Singh and Hari Singh, made an application for being impleaded as parties on the ground of being co-shares. Their application was dismissed by the District Judge, Faridabad with the finding that there was nothing on record to show that share of Ramesh Singh and Hari Singh had also been acquired by the State. The order dismissing the applications was not challenged by respondents No. 2 and 3. Having failed on these two fronts, respondents No. 2 and 3 filed execution applications, claiming compensation on the strength of the award passed in favour of Rumal Singh. According to them, though they were not parties to the award which was passed on the reference made by Rumal Singh, yet they being co-owners/co-sharers, are also entitled to the compensation as awarded by the District Judge in the case of Rumal Singh. The State contested the execution, raising various pleas including the one that execution is not maintainable because respondents No. 2 and 3 were not parties to the reference made by Rumal Singh, In reply, reference was also made to the petition filed by respondents No. 2 and 3 which was referred under Section 18 to the District Judge, Gurgaon, and also to the dismissal of the application for becoming parties in the reference petition filed by Rumal Singh, deceased. The executing Court held that if the contention of the respondent-State is accepted, that would amount to discrimination between the two-co-owners of the acquired land, one being paid compensation at enhanced price than the other. Law abhors discrimination. " Consequently, respondents No. 2 and 3 were held entitled to enhanced compensation as awarded by the District Judge in his judgment dated 1. 5. 1976 passed on reference made by Rumal Singh. They were also held entitled to other statutory benefits such as solatium and interest etc. , as awarded to Rumal Singh. This order is being challenged by the State in the present revision petition.

(3.) LEARNED State counsel appearing for the petitioner-Haryana State, contended that the executing Court had no jurisdiction to give benefit of the enhanced compensation to respondents No. 2 and 3 in execution proceedings. In reply, Mr. Ajai Lamba, counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3, vehemently contended that compensation was enhanced by the District Judge on a reference made by co-owner and, therefore, reference must be deemed to have been made on behalf of other co-owners and thus, respondents No. 2 and 3 are also entitled to the enhanced compensation. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon judgments of this Court reported as Harmant Singh and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon and Ors. , (1987-2) 92 P. L. R. 188 and in Kamla Devi v. State of Haryana, (1986-1) 89 P. L. R. 692.