R.B.Misra - (1.) -This case was heard on 15.9.1999 by this Court and after hearing the Court has been pleased to pass the following orders : "Learned standing counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Amit holding brief of Sri Deo Raj, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. Learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 prays for and is granted four weeks for filing counter-affidavit. Rejoinder-affidavit may be filed within one week thereafter. List this case for admission in the week commencing 1.11.1999. Petitioner is directed to serve the respondent No. 5 personally as also by registered post A.D. Operation of the impugned order dated 21.7.1999 at Annexure-4 to the writ petition will remain stayed provided the petitioner, as claimed, has already deposited the amount granted, as claim, by the respondent No. 2, as in respect of said deposit no dispute has been raised by the petitioner. If the said amount has not been deposited, the present interim order will not be effective."
(2.) THIS petition was adjourned on several occasions on 2.5.2002 and 8.5.2002 and 17.5.2002 Sri R. D. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner has sent illness slip which has been objected by learned counsel for the private respondent. When this case was listed for hearing on 17.5.2002 the petitions were sought to be adjourned on the ground of illness, however in absence of learned counsel for the petitioner after hearing learned standing counsel and on perusal of records the present petitions are being decided. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that the petitioner is a unit of U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. engaged in the manufacture of white crystal sugar by vacuum pan process. The State of U. P. had acquired the land which included the land of respondent No. 5 for modernisation and expansion of the petitioner unit and in reference to acquisition award No. 16 dated 23.11.1987 was passed by the respondent No. 2 (Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bijnor district Bijnor). The respondent No. 5 (Raj Pal Singh) filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation awarded by respondent No. 2 and in these proceedings, the petitioner was not made a party and an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was moved before Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional District Judge, Bijnor). The respondent No. 5 initiated Execution Case No. 6 of 1993 before the respondent No. 1 for execution of the decree dated 29.9.1993 (Annexure-3) in pursuance of the judgment of same date. The respondent No. 1 started recovery proceeding against the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file an objection on 26.9.1998 under Section 47, C.P.C. categorically stating therein that the petitioner was not made a party either in the award Reference Case No. 88 of 1988 as well as in Execution Case No. 6 of 1993, therefore, the decree cannot be executed against the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 on 21.7.1999 (Annexure-4) passed the impugned order whereby the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bijnor, was directed to recover the amount under the decree also. It appears that U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. has been declared sick by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R.) by order dated 21.8.1995 (Annexure-6) now the order dated 21.7.1999 (Annexure-4) has been challenged in the present case. In order dated 21.7.1999, the Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional District Judge noted that in the order dated 21.7.1999, despite the decree passed on 29.9.1993, the amount of award has not been paid to the concerned authority whereas agriculture land has been acquired on the expenses of petitioner. It has also noted that only State Government has been made a party. Therefore, the decree is to be executed against the State Government. In the light of the above observation the Special Judge (E. C. Act)/Additional District Judge in its order dated 21.7.1999, has directed that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bijnor to proceed for realisation of amount of compensation from U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and to deposit the same on 1.9.1999, to the Court and for realisation of such compensation amount the recovery was also directed to be issued against the U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., Bijnor in accordance with law. A counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 5. According to para 5 of the counter-affidavit, it also appears that the award was made in favour of the contesting respondent dated 29.9.1993 and an execution application on behalf of the contesting respondent was filed which was registered as Execution Case No. 6 of 1993 and in the said execution application, dated 4.4.1997 was moved on behalf of the petitioner requesting therein that 33% of the money of the enhanced compensation be accepted and the proceeds of execution be stayed. In para 6 of the counter-affidavit, it has been mentioned that Sri Harpal Singh, advocate, who is District Government Counsel (Civil) is also representing the State Sugar Corporation Unit, Bijnor and an application D-35 was also moved on behalf of the petitioner which was decided by the executing court by his order dated 16.5.1998 (Annexure-C.A. 3). In para 7 of the counter-affidavit, it has been asserted by respondent No. 5 that the petitioner was having the knowledge of the award made by learned Additional District Judge, Bijnor and he failed to file an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act and by moving the application dated 4.4.1997, the petitioner has submitted to the award. Therefore, according to respondent No. 5 petitioner cannot claim that he was not pleaded as party.
(3.) SUPPLEMENTARY counter-affidavit was filed by respondent No. 5 and para 2 of same indicates that petitioner was represented by Sri O. P. Goel, advocate, who had filed vakalatnama duly signed by General Manager, U. P. State Sugar Corporation Unit, Bijnor and also moved adjournment application. A true copy of the vakalatnama is enclosed as S.A.-1 to the supplementary counter-affidavit. In para 3 of supplementary counter-affidavit it also appears that the petitioner participated in the reference therefore has got no right to file the present writ petition on the plea that the notice was not issued to them in spite of the fact the several applications were moved for seeking time to deposit the amount of award. I have perused the documents and have gone through the contents of the writ petition and the contents of the counter-affidavit as well as supplementary counter-affidavit. Since the State Government has acquired the agriculture land of respondent No. 5 and was also ready to pay 33% of the money of the enhanced compensation as awarded in connection with the compensation as prayed by respondent. This Court is also not aware as to whether the order dated 21.7.1999, passed by Special Judge (E. C. Act)/Additional District Judge, Bijnor, has been complied with or not. In this situation, there is no scope for interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed.;