ANITA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by Smt. Anita widow of Harish Chand and their three minor children praying that order impugned directing that half share of the amount of Rs. 18,90,907. 65 paise which fell to the share of the deceased Harish Chand was to be deposited in a nationalised bank till such time that the petitioners obtained a succession certificate or a declaration from a competent court that they were the legal representatives of deceased Harish Chand.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that compensation for the land that had been acquired by the State of Haryana was determined Rs. 18,90,907. 65 paise. It appears that after the award of the District Judge, Jind, under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, Harish Chand died and in the execution proceedings filed in the Court of Additional District Judge, Smt. Anita filed an application on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children that they should be impleaded as the L. R. 's of the deceased. It appears that this application was not opposed by the other claimants to the compensation, but the executing Court found that it was not open to it to go into the question as to whether the petitioners were in fact the L R's of the deceased and till such declaration was obtained either in the form of a succession certificate or in any other manner the compensation as assessed in the hands of Harish Chand should be deposited in a nationalised bank. Aggrieved with this portion of the order of the executing Court the present petition has been tiled.

(3.) IT has been urged by Mr. Hooda, Sr. Advocate, appearing for the petitioners that there was no dispute inter-se between the parties in the proceedings that the compensation was due to the petitioners to the extent of the share of Harish Chand deceased and as such it was only just and proper that the executing Court be directed to order the payment of compensation 10 the petitioners. He has urged that the provisions of Order 22 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, would apply only where there is a dispute with regard to the question as to whether any person is or is not a legal representative of the deceased and not to a situation where such a person is admitted to be a legal representative of the deceased even by those persons who can well object it. He has asserted that as respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 who could have a locus standi to object to the acceptance of the petitioners as the legal representatives of the deceased had not raised any objection before the executing Court, the application should have been allowed.