R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) C .M. is allowed and permission is granted to the petitioners to place on record the additional affidavit and copies of jamabandis.
(2.) THIS is a civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India vide which challenge has been given to the order dated 12.6.1991 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ropar, wherein it was held as under :- "2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find that the objectors are none else than the applicants for execution of the order dated 8.4.1989 passed by my learned predecessor Sh. H.S. Maunder, Additional District Judge, Ropar. It was decided therein that the compensation has to be paid according to the shares mentioned in the jamabandi for the year 1983-84. The present court being now the executing court cannot go behind the decree and the decree has to be executed as such. Therefore, the objection petitions are dismissed. The applicants may be paid compensation according to the shares in the jamabandi for the year 1983-84 in accordance with order dated 8.4.1989. File be consigned to the record room." Some facts can be noticed in the following manner:- The petitioners alleged that they belonged to village Kailar, Tehsil Kharar, District Ambala and the land of the village was acquired by the Punjab Government in order to raise capital of punjab and on account of the acquisition of their land falling in the territorial jurisdiction of village Kailar, the petitioners allegedly became "capital oustees" and they were allotted land in village Majat, Tehsil Kharar, District Ambala. Thereafter the land of village Majat was acquired by the Punjab Government for the construction of S.Y.L. Canal. A dispute arose between the proprietors and the Gram Panchayat Majat and in land reference No. T3 of 1986 the matter was referred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Ropar under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. In para No. 6 of the order dated 8.4.1989 the Court of Additional District Judge, Ropar held that the proprietary body of the village was entitled to receive the compensation in preference to the Gram Panchayat, Majat. In the proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act the dispute was with regard to the land measuring 321 Kanals 13 Marlas. The findings of the Court of Additional District Judge, Ropar are as follows:- "6. The counsel for the claimants/petitioners has drawn my attention to copy of mutation Ex.A1 according to which ownership of the land has been changed from that Gram Panchayat Majat to Shamlat deh in column No. 9. In column No. 10, it is shown as Makbuza Malkans. Furthermore, in the Jamabandi for the year 1983-84, placed by the department, land is again shown as Shamlat Deh, Hasab Rasad Jara Khewat. The learned counsel for the petitioners has cited Chajju Ram v. The Joint Director, Panchayats and others, 1986 R.R.R. 105 : 1986 P.L.J. 293 wherein it is held that the land kept apart as Mashtarka Malkans as per revenue record is vested in proprietary body and used for agricultural purposes by proprietors of the village and not for any common purposes of village and it was held that it does not come within the ambit of Shamlat Deh. The evidence of the petitioners remained unrebutted. Otherwise also, from the record, the ownership of the proprietors is clearly made out. Therefore, proprietary body of the village is entitled to receive the compensation. The land reference is decided accordingly. There is no order as to costs. Memo of costs be prepared. File be consigned."
(3.) THE petitioners are not satisfied with the order dated 12.6.1991 on the plea that they are entitled to the entire compensation of the acquired land being the capital oustees.;