STATE OF HARYANA Vs. PUSHPA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.10.2000 passed by the learned Executing Court by which execution application filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 has been maintained.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 21.07.1993 an area of 11 kanals 4 marlas comprised in khasra No. 182//2/2 (2 -13), 182/9(8 -11), situated at Basti Bhima at Fatehabad was acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded Rs. 3 lacs per acre in all including all benefits etc. Vide award No. 1 dated 8.7.1996. The other co -sharers namely Sunil Kumar, Dev Raj, Jitender and Rajiv Kumar filed a reference as contemplated under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of enhancement of compensation before the Civil Court in which market value of the acquired land was assessed at the rate of Rs. 10 lac per acre equivalent to Rs. 206/ - per square yard besides the statutory benefits. Petitioners herein are the co -sharers to the extent of 16 marlas of land in equal share in khewat of 11 kanals 4 marlas, which was acquired. Sunil Kumar, Dev Raj, Jitender and Rajiv Kumar, filed an application for execution bearing LA No. 383 of 1997 claiming the compensation awarded by the Court. The respondents also filed application for the same compensation but their application was contested by the petitioners herein on the ground that it is not maintainable as it has been filed in the execution of a co -sharer. It was stated by the petitioners herein that until and unless respondents No. 1 and 2, who are applicants in the execution had preferred their own objection under Section 18 the compensation awarded in favour of the other co -sharers cannot be granted. This revision petition was ultimately admitted on 10.12.2004 and interim order regarding stay of implementation of the impugned award was ordered to be continued vide order dated 22.10.2010. The revision petition, however, was ordered to be heard within six months. Thereafter, this case has been listed by the Registry as service upon respondent No. 1 was found to be incomplete. The respondent No. 1 has not been served as she is not found residing at the given address.

(3.) WITH the consent of both the parties, the main revision petition is taken on Board and arguments are heard.