KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Improvement Trust, Patiala had issued a notification on January 4, 1974 Under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 regarding acquisition of land. On July 28, 1978, the Land Acquisition Collector gave the award. The amount of compensation assessed by the Collector was paid to various persons including the petitioners. Respondent No. 5 claimed ownership of land measuring 4 bighas 8 biswas bearing Khasra No. 1019. He sought a reference Under Section 18 before the Land Acquisition Tribunal. This application alongwith the application filed by the present petitioners for enhancement of compensation were tried together. By its award dated February 2, 1995, the Tribunal found that respondent No. 5 had become owner of the land in dispute by adverse possession. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition.

(2.) MR . V. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land in fact belongs to Roshan Lal etc. and that the Tribunal has erred in deciding the case without even impleading the petitioners as parties. The factual position that the petitioners had not been impleaded as parties either in the application Under Section 18 or by the District Judge suo motu, has not been disputed. It has, however, been urged that the petitioners were fully aware of the pendency of the proceedings and had participated in the trial. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioners had not been impleaded. They were not given an opportunity to file a written statement. As a result, they were unable to raise such pleas as may have been available to them. Keeping in view the fact that they claim to be the owners, it is just and proper to say that they were necessary parties. In this situation, the award given by the Tribunal in Land Reference No. 85 of 19. 2 198 1 is liable to be set aside in so far as it relates to the land measuring 4 bighas 8 biswas bearing Khasra No. 1039. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the present petitioners may now be treated as parties in Land Reference No. 85 of 1981. They are also agreed that they may be permitted to file their written statement and that the matter may be decided afresh.

(3.) THE writ petition is accordingly disposed of. In the circumstances of the case there will be order as to costs.