ATTAR SINGH Vs. CHANDER BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment, two appeals i.e. Regular Second Appeal Nos.1680 and 1689 of 1999 shall stand disposed of as both arise from one suit. Defendants-appellants are in the regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below. In the considered view of this Court, questions of law which require determination are- Whether release of joint land from compulsory acquisition by the developer (Haryana Urban Development Authority), a government owned agency, can be claimed by one co-sharer exclusively on the ground that he applied for allotment or it would be for the benefit of all co-sharers

(2.) Whether it is permissible for the State Government or developing agency to release the land after having taken possession Undisputed facts are that a large chunk of land was acquired which included joint land owned by the plaintiffs and defendant no.1. Pursuant to the aforesaid compulsory acquisition, compensation was paid and acquisition proceedings were completed. After acquisition, the land was utilised for the purpose for which the land was acquired, however, 11 marlas of land (the property in dispute) which was a part of the joint land could not be unutilised. Taking benefit of the aforesaid situation, defendant no.1 applied to the developing authority, Haryana Urban Development Authority (now known as Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran) for allotment of the aforesaid land i.e. 11 marlas of land on the ground that it is part of their residential houses. The Haryana Urban Development Authority after examination of the entire matter decided to return the land vide letter Ex.DW21. Pursuant thereto, the compensation received was deposited. It is claimed that only Karan Singh, defendant no.1-appellant deposited the compensation. Thereafter, on further demand, even development charges were deposited. It may be noted here that the agreement for release of the land which had taken acquired was executed on 31/8/1984, Ex.DW51. Possession was also delivered to Karan Singh. Now the dispute is whether such release of land is only for the benefit of Karan Singh, who was only a co-sharer in the joint land.

(3.) Plaintiffs who were also co-sharers filed the present suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction declaring that the release is for the benefit of all co-sharers and therefore, they are co- sharers in the plot to the extent of their share. It may be noted that during the pendency of the suit Defendant no.1 Karan Singh, appellant herein in one of the appeal had sold the property in favour of respondents no.14, 15 and 16, who are appellants in a separate appeal which is being disposed of by a common judgment. It may further be noted that during the pendency of the suit, Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority has in supersession of the previous communication has clarified that the land was released in favour of plaintiffs and Karan Singh i.e. all co-owners.