R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: October 16, 2008
(1) R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989
Parkash and others
..Appellants
v.
Kale Ram (deceased) through L.Rs.
and others
.. Respondents
(2) R.F.A. No. 2622 of 1989
Kale Ram (deceased) through L.Rs.
.. Appellants
v.
State of Haryana and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Harminderjit Singh, Advocate for the appellants
in R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989.
Mr. Manmohan Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Adish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants in
R.F.A. No. 2622 of 1989 and for respondent No.1
in R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989.
Mr. Sarwan Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr. N.S. Rapri, Advocate for Parkash, Jagdish
and Jeetu.
Mr. H.S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with
Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General,
Haryana for the State.
Mr. A. P. Bhandari, Advocate for respondent No.4
in R.F.A. No. 2622 of 1989.
..
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two appeals bearing
Nos. 1473 and 2622 of 1989 arising out of the same acquisition.
R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989 [2]
R.F.A. No. 2622 of 1989 has been filed by Kale Ram, who claimed
himself to be the power of attorney holder of the owners of land. The power of
attorney was executed on 6.6.1962 (registered on 7.6.1962) which, according to
the counsel for the appellants, is irrevocable in nature.
The appellants in R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989 are the recorded owners
of the land who had executed the power of attorney in favour of Kale Ram
regarding the land in dispute on 6.6.1962 after taking a sum of Rs. 80,000/- which,
according to them, was revoked on 21.1.1985.
Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 37.3 acres situated in
Village Anangpur, Hadbast No.2, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Gurgaon was
acquired vide notification dated 9.7.1973 issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act’) for development and utilisation of land
as residential area in Sector 37, Faridabad. The same was followed by notification
under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the
Collector’) gave award of Rs. 488/- per Biswa Karm for Chahi, Nammor, Gair
Mumkin Chahi, Banjar Kadeem, Gair Mumkin road and Gair Mumkin Factory and
Rs. 250/- per biswa for Gair Mumkin land. Aggrieved against the same, the land
owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District
Judge, Faridabad, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the
parties, determined the fair value of the land at Rs. 18/- per square yard for all
kinds of land.
Learned counsel appearing for Kale Ram-appellant submitted that a
bare perusal of the power of attorney dated 6.6.1962 executed by the appellants in
R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989 shows that the same was irrevocable in nature. In fact,
the entire sale consideration for the land had been paid by Kale Ram and the title
of the property stood transferred in his name. There was no question of revocation
of the power of attorney executed way back on 6.6.1962 in his favour on 21.1.1985
and that too nearly 13 years after the acquisition with the allegation that the owners
apprehended misappropriation of the property in the hands of power of attorney
holder. Relying upon Dr. G.H. Grant v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 237;
Seth Loon Karan Sethiya v. Ivan E. John and others, AIR 1969 SC 73; Himalaya
Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho (dead) by L.Rs., AIR 1980
SC 1118; Niranjan Singh and others v. Amar Singh and others, AIR 1984 SC
250; Ramesh Mohan and another v. Raj Krishan and others, 1984 PLR 211;
Murti Shree Ram Chander Ji Maharaj v. State of Haryana, 1987 PLJ 131; Smt.
Ambey Devi v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 1996 SC 1513; Dattaram Deu
Desai and others v. Shri Nirakar Devasthan of Palolem and others, 2000 AIHC
R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989 [3]
197; Bhau Krishna Shinde v. Vatsala Bhau Dhamale and others, 2000(2) AILACC
203; and Pushpa Devi and another v. Smt. Sarti Devi and others, (2002) 1 LACC
514, the submission is that the application filed by the owners of the land for being
impleaded as party was not maintainable as such.
As regards the determination of compensation is concerned, reliance
was placed upon a judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 1724 of 1979 -M/s Raj
Dhani Land and Finance v. State of Haryana, decided on 24.12.1993, where for
acquisition of land vide same notification, the value of the acquired land was
assessed at Rs. 24/- per square yard.
Learned counsel for the appellants in R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989
submitted that they are the true owners of the land. There was nothing wrong in
their filing the application before the Court below for being impleaded/ substituted
as the petitioners as after revocation of the power of attorney in favour of Kale
Ram, they could very well prosecute their case themselves. It is not in dispute that
in the revenue records they were shown to be the owners of the land under
acquisition. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court in Indraj v.
Sham Lal, AIR 1993 P&H 95 wherein it was held that in a reference under
Section 30 of the Act invoking the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, a person can seek his impleadment as a party to the dispute.
Learned counsel for the State did not dispute the fact that
compensation for the acquired land was further enhanced by this Court in M/s Raj
Dhani Land and Finance’s case (supra), where the same was assessed at Rs. 24/-
per square yard.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
A perusal of the record shows that the amount of compensation, as
determined by the Collector, was paid to Kale Ram as attorney holder vide voucher
No. 3546 dated 29.10.1976. It is only Kale Ram who filed objections before the
Collector, which were referred to the learned Court below vide memo dated
28.8.1984. During the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Court
below, the appellants in R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989, being the recorded owners of
the land, filed application dated 24.1.1985 for discharging Kale Ram and his
counsel from the case with the contention that they no more authorise Kale Ram
to continue with the case as the power of attorney in his favour had already been
cancelled on 21.1.1985. The application was contested by Kale Ram with the plea
that the general power of attorney dated 6.6.1962 was executed by the owners of
the property in his favour after receiving Rs. 80,000/- as consideration for selling
the land which thereafter belonged to him. It was further stated that power of
R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989 [4]
attorney was irrevocable. It was also agreed upon between the parties that Kale
Ram will be entitled to receive the entire consideration on sale of the land. As the
reference has been made on the request of Kale Ram, the Court was not entitled to
enhance the scope thereof on any application by a third person regarding
entitlement or apportionment of the compensation. In addition to this, application
was also filed by Des Raj claiming himself to be a lessee on the property for being
impleaded as party to the proceedings.
The Court below only permitted the applicants to be intervenors in
the proceedings as there was neither any application by the appellants in R.F.A.
No. 1473 of 1989, who claimed themselves to be the owners of the land objecting
to the amount of compensation paid by the Collector nor there was any application
by any of the parties seeking apportionment of the compensation. The learned
court below on the issue regarding entitlement of compensation directed that the
question regarding title needs to be decided by the Civil Court of the competent
jurisdiction, whereas as regards the value of the acquired land, it was determined at
Rs. 18/- per square yard.
As far as assessment of the value of the land is concerned, the parties
are not in dispute that the issue has already been gone into by this Court in M/s
Raj Dhani Land and Finance’s case (supra), where value of the acquired land has
been assessed at Rs. 24/- per square yard. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the
aforesaid case, the value of the acquired land is assessed at Rs. 24/- per square
yard. The appellants shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under
the Act. The appeals to that extent are accepted with costs.
As far as the claim of the parties with regard to entitlement to claim
compensation is concerned, number of judgments, as referred to above, have been
cited opining as to whether the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure are applicable in the proceedings under the Act or not. However, the
dispute in the present case, in my considered opinion, is not simplicitor for
impleading as a party to the proceedings under the Act during the pendency of the
reference before the Court below. It is a case where Kale Ram was representing
himself to be the owner of the acquired land on the basis of an irrevocable power
of attorney executed in his favour by the owners thereof on 6.6.1962 after receipt
of a sum of Rs. 80,000/- from him. It is not in dispute that the Collector had paid
the amount of compensation to him, though as attorney. Objections were also filed
by him. It was during the pendency of the reference before the Court below that an
application was filed by Parkash, Jagdish and Jeetu for discharging Kale Ram from
the proceedings and instead permitting them to proceed with the case. It was on the
R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989 [5]
basis of revocation deed dated 21.1.1985 cancelling the power of attorney
executed in favour of Kale Ram on 6.6.1962. It is relevant to add here that the land
in question was acquired by the State vide notification dated 9.7.1973. The
relevant terms of the power of attorney in favour of Kale Ram are extracted below:
“The said GPA is competent to enter into any bargain in
consideration of any amount with any person in respect of the said
land. He can purchase stamp paper for sale deed and get the sale deed
executed and present the same after signing or thumb mark the same
before the Sub Registrar concerned for registration and he can
receive the consideration money and get the said lease deed and also
the sale deed according to rules and have mutation entered on our
behalf, appear before the revenue officer and give the statement to
have the mutation sanctioned. He can give any application or
affidavit. As we were in need of money we have received Rs.
80,000/- from the G.P.A. against receipt. The said GPA will have no
power to sell our land for a lesser amount and the amount which he
gets in excess he will retain that amount as his commission. We the
said executant have no future right to get any share. This Power of
Attorney will be irrevocable.”
In the cancellation deed (Ex. R.6) executed by Parkash, Jagdish and
Jeetu, it was mentioned that they had lost faith in attorney- Kale Ram and it was
apprehended that he would misappropriate the property and accordingly they did
not want to continue him as attorney.
From the facts of the case, it is evident that it is not a case simplicitor
for impleading a person interested as party to the reference. The fact is that the
owners were already party in the proceedings. Kale Ram was claiming himself to
be the owner of the property on the basis of irrevocable power of attorney, whereas
Parkash, Jagdish and Jeetu claimed ownership stating that they had revoked the
power of attorney. The issue involved here would be the interpretation of the
power of attorney dated 6.6.1962 (Ex. P.1) regarding the nature thereof and the
rights flowing therefrom and also as to whether the same could be cancelled and
the effect of cancellation thereof 19 years after the execution thereof and 12 years
after the acquisition of the land in question is required to be gone into. It would not
be appropriate for this Court to decide this intricate question in the reference
proceedings for enhancement in the value of the acquired land. The learned Court
below has rightly relegated the parties to the Civil Court for the purpose.
Accordingly, the findings of the Court below on other issues are upheld.
R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989 [6]
During the pendency of the appeal before this Court, Kale Ram was
permitted to withdraw the amount of compensation as determined by the learned
Court below on furnishing of security to the satisfaction of the Court. Kale Ram
shall be entitled to retain the amount of compensation paid to him by interim order
passed by this Court. However, the same shall be subject to final determination of
rights of the parties by the Court of competent jurisdiction. As regards the
enhanced compensation is concerned, the same shall be deposited by the State with
the Executing Court which, in turn, shall get the same deposited in a fixed deposit
with the nationalised bank carrying maximum rate of interest. The amount so
deposited shall be disbursed to the person who is held entitled to claim the same by
the Court of competent jurisdiction.
The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
October 16, 2008
mk