PUSHPA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 22.03.2014, whereby the execution application filed by the petitioner for seeking enhancement amount of compensation without filing a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, had been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a notification under Section 4 under the Erstwhile Land Acquisition Act was issued on 28.01.2002 and thereafter, award was passed on 20.01.2005. As per the averments made in the revision petition, it was stated that one Shanti Devi daughter of Ladha had purchased one plot measuring 28x65 i.e. 1820 sq. fts., being part of khasra Nos.895, 896, 897, 898, 899/840 situated within the revenue estate of Village Garhi Mundo Tehsil Jagadhri from Partap Nagar, House Building Society vide sale deed dated 16.03.1960. She died issueless and the petitioner by virtue of decree dated 17.05.1994 became the owner of the property. On merging of Abadi and plot of the petitioner, the aforesaid khasra numbers along with other khasra numbers became khasra number 308/3, which fact is evident from the demarcation report dated 11.02011. Earlier the landowner had filed a reference under Section 18 of the Erstwhile Land Acquisition Act and petitioner when received the cheque dated 26.02011 came to know that the land of the co-sharer of Khasra No.308/3 was acquired. The petitioner immediately filed an execution application, which was contested by the respondents. The aforementioned execution application has been dismissed on account of non-availing of the remedy under Section 18 of the Erstwhile Land Acquisition Act. In support of his contentions, he relied the ratio decidendi culled out by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narendra and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2017) 3 LawHerald(SC) 2299 to contend that the other co-sharers, who do not file the reference, cannot be prevented from filing the execution application.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the impugned order is perfectly legal and justified and the same is liable to be sustained in view of the findings rendered by this Court in Smt. Champa and Others v. Stae of Haryana, (1989) 2 RRR 158, thus, urges this Court for dismissal of the present revision petition.