BALINDER SINGH Vs. AMAR GURDIAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the judgment dated February 14, 1977 rendered by the Additional District Judge, Jind, in an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby the learned Additional District Judge ordered the present petitioners to retain one-third amount of the enhanced compensation awarded by the District Court on an earlier occasion and allowed the respondents to withdraw the remaining two-thirds share. The grievance made in the petition is that in the earlier case the petitioners alone made an application to the Land Acquisition Collector for making a reference to the District Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which was allowed and compensation for 8 kanals and 1/3 marla which fell to their share was assessed at Rs. 54,490.45. It is argued that the respondents not having made an application under section 18 of the Act could not reap the benefit of the successful efforts made by the petitioners for getting enhanced compensation. It is further argued that the learned lower Court did not property interpret the documents placed on record for coming to the impugned finding.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the learned Additional District Judge has not made a proper exercise of his powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the petitioner had filed certified documents which threw a light on the earlier award, he was under a duty to consider all these documents on the principle that a Court which executes a decree or tries to interpret a decree is entitled to look at the pleadings and the substance of the matter in order to determine what relief had been given. Now, compensation for 8 kanals 1/3 marla has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 25/- per square yard. In the earlier award the compensation had been ordered to be paid at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square yard. If the claim of the petitioners is reckoned on a rough and ready basis it would show that the sum of Rs. 54,490.45 represented the market value of their land at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square yard and solatium at the rate of 15 per cent, plus interest. In this situation;, even if the respondents were co-sharers with the petitioners, it cannot be said that the petitioners had usurped any rights of the respondents only because they applied that compensation in respect of their share be enhanced, which was done by the learned District Court. Even otherwise, the petitioners had already withdrawn that amount, and if their co-sharers had any claim against it, it was open to them to have filed a civil suit. It is settled law that where the remedy of a civil suit is available a Court does not ordinarily act in exercise of its inherent powers. In the circumstances, I allow this petition and set aside the judgment dated February 14, 1977, rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Jind. The respondents, if they are so advised, may file a civil suit to recover any amount from the petitioners. No costs.