CIVIL APPEAL 2316 of 1992 on 4 September 1989

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH.

Anil Sood and others

Urinder Singh and others

C.R. No. 2316 of 1992DATE OF DECISION : 02.02.2011

.... PETITIONERS

Versus

..... RESPONDENTS

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL

Present:Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate,for the petitioners.Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate,for respondents No.1 to 3.Mr. K.D.S. Sidhu, DAG, Punjab,for respondents No.5 to 7.

* * *

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )

The petitioners, who are legal heirs of Smt. Shakuntla Devi,have filed this revision petition against the order dated 22.5.1992, passed bythe Reference Court in a reference filed by respondents No.1 to 4.

Undisputedly, in the present case, certain land, for which thedispute is between the parties, was acquired by the Government of Punjab,vide notification dated 2.6.1978, for setting up a new sabzi market atKapurthala. The said land (measuring 68 kanals 4 marlas), for which areference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') was filed by respondents No.1 to 4, was part of theaforesaid acquisition. Respondents No.1 to 4 claimed themselves to be inpossession of the said land as perpetual lessees for 99 years, regardingwhich the lease was executed in their favour by Smt. Shakuntla Devi(predecessor of the petitioners). The reference was finally decided by theReference Court vide judgment dated 6.10.1983. In appeal filed byrespondents No.1 to 4, while reducing the amount of compensation, thelearned Single Judge, vide judgment dated September 4, 1989, remitted thematter for adjudication of the issue with regard to apportionment of thecompensation between the owner and the perpetual lessees. When the mattercame back to the Reference Court, Smt. Shakuntla Devi moved anapplication for becoming party in the reference, as earlier she did not submitany application either under Section 30 or Section 18 of the Act. Herapplication was allowed vide order dated 9.2.1983 and thereafter, the casewas adjourned for evidence of the respective parties. When the evidencewas in progress and respondents No.1 to 4 were producing certaindocuments, learned counsel for Smt. Shakuntla Devi objected for the same,to which learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 submitted that Smt.Shakuntla Devi has no locus standi in the case, as she did not file anyreference either under Section 30 or Section 18 of the Act. After hearinglearned counsel for the parties, vide order dated 22.5.1992, the ReferenceCourt observed that Smt. Shakuntla Devi has no locus standi to raise suchobjection. This order has been challenged in the present revision petition.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the viewthat as far as the right of respondents No.1 to 4 to produce documents insupport of their claim is concerned, they cannot be denied the said right.Whatsoever documentary evidence they want to lead in support of theirclaim, they are at liberty to produce the same. Learned counsel for thepetitioners is having the only grouse against the observation of theReference Court, whereby it has been observed that Smt. Shakuntla Devihas no locus standi. In our opinion, this observation is only with regard tothe raising of objection for leading evidence by respondents No.1 to 4.Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners, who are legal heirs of Smt.Shakuntla Devi, that they have no locus standi and they will not beconsidered for any claim in the amount of compensation, is without anybase. In our opinion, the petitioners as well as respondents No.1 to 4 are atliberty to lead evidence in support of their respective claim. With thisclarification, this petition is disposed of.

Since the proceedings before the Reference Court were stayedby this Court, therefore, we direct the Reference Court to decide thereference in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity ofhearing to both the parties, within a period of six months.

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )JUDGE

February 02, 2011 ndj

( M. JEYAPAUL )JUDGE