PARKASH CHAND Vs. COLLECTOR UNA
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
KAMLESH SHARMA,J. -
(1.) Petitioner Parkash Chand has preferred this Revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. against the judgment dated 22 -8 -1988 passed by the District Judge, Una, in Land Reference Case No. 130 of 1987 whereby the following directions were issued i - (i) The compensation amount of Rs, 91,450 be paid to the members of the Proprietary body of village Barsara as per their share in the Khewat; (ii) The petitioner, Parkash Chand (respondent No. 2 in the Reference case) was ordered to refund the amount of compensation received from the Collector, Una (respondent No. 1 in the Reference case) ; and (iii) the costs of litigation were ordered to be borne by the petitioner Parkash Chand and Collector Una (respondents No. 1 and 2 in the Reference case).
(2.) Petitioner Parkash Chand is mainly aggrieved by the second direction. He does not dispute that the acquired land was jointly owned by the proprietary body of village Barsara, Tehsil and District Una. According to him, he had received the compensation amount of Rs. 91,450 on behalf of Gram Panchayat. Chamkaur, Tehsil and District Una, in his capacity as its Pradhan and deposited it in the Panchayat fund, Gram Panchayat Chamkaur had authorised him to receive the payment on its behalf and spend it on welfare of the residents of village Bsrsara as desired by them. But 27 members of the proprietary body filed reference claiming compensation amount according to their share in the Khewat as the land belonged to them. Their case was that petitioner Parkash Chand had no right to receive payment being Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Chamkaur, as the land did not belong to the Gram Panchayat. The Collector, Una, admitted the claim of respondents No 2 to 28 (applicants in the Reference case) but alleged that Refund Voucher was given to petitioner Parkash Chand at the instance of the proprietary body Petitioner Parkash Chand took the stand that he had received the amount of compensation on behalf of Gram Panchayat for spending it for the welfare of the residents of village Barsara, After trial, on the basis of evidence on record, the District Judge has held that petitioner Parkash Chand (respondent No. 2 in the reference case) was not able to show any authority of proprietary body of village Barsara to receive the compensation amount on their behalf. Therefore, direction was made to him to refund the compensation amount,
(3.) Sh. H K. Bhardwaj, appearing on behalf of respondents No 2 to 28, has raised objection that revision under section 115, C.P.C. is not maintainable, He submits that the impugned order is an award passed under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) on a reference made by the Collector which is appealable under section 54 of the Act. On the other hand, Sh. S. 3, Kanwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Parkash Chand, urges that his client is not disputing the award but only a part of it whereby he has been ordered to refund the amount of compensation received by him from the Collector, Una For making this submission, Sh Kanwar has relied upon Mt Gohar Sultan v. Alt Muhammad. AIR 1921 Lahore 153; Makhan Lal and others v. Secy, of State, AIR 1934 All 260 ; Rahimuddin Sheikh and others v Sarifan Nesa and others. AIR 1954 Assam 92 and Ahmad Hossain v Bibi Naeman and others, AIR 1963 Patna 30.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.