LAWS(P&H)-1977-12-30

BISHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On December 12, 1977
BISHAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment dated May 15, 1968 rendered by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, by which he held that the appellants had no right to take out execution of his judgment given in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The ground which prevailed with him was that, though an application was made on behalf of all the landowners, only one, namely, Kissi signed the same and the land Acquisition Collector made a reference of his case only. The only argument accepted was that the presence of a validly made reference under Section 18 of the Act was a condition precedent for the learned District Court to allow enhanced compensation to the various landowners.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below in the peculiar circumstances of the case is untenable. It cannot be disputed that the State and the appellants filed appeals against the award made by the District Court under Section 18 of he Land Acquisition Act. These appeals came up before a Division Bench of this Court on April 27, 1977. The appeals filed by the State Government were dismissed and those filed by the landowners were allowed by the Division Bench. In other words, finding was given that the landowners were entitled to claim enhanced compensation and that they had been properly impleaded as parties to the appeal. It is settled law that the principles of res judicata apply to the proceedings of the same case which arise at a later stage. An execution is merely an extension of the original cause. If a Division Bench of this Court had impliedly or expressly held on an appeal filed by the State Government that the landowners were entitled to enhanced compensation, it was not open to the State Government thereafter, to raise the plea that the reference made by the Land Acquisition Collector had actually been made in favour of one landowner only. In any event, a defect in making the reference does not affect the merits of the controversy which had been set at rest by the Division Bench judgment. In the circumstances, I allow this appeal and hold that the appellants are entitled to seek the execution of the award. No costs.