G.S.SINGHVI, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against order dated 12.1.1984 passed by Additional District Judge, Faridabad in Execution Case No. 129 of 1980.
(2.) THE petitioners claims that they were perpetual lessees of land comprised in khasra No. 679 situated within the revenue estate of Faridabad which was acquired by the State of Haryana under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'). In the reference application filed by the land owners (respondents No. 3 and 4) for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, learned District Judge, Gurgaon, after taking into consideration the statement made by their counsel, passed award dated 21.1.1974 vide which he declared that the proprietors of the land were entitled to capitalised value assessed at 20 times of the rental value and the remaining compensation shall be payable to the lessees. This is borne out from para 50 of the judgment, which is reproduced below : "It was conceded by Shri Vidya Sagar, counsel for the proprietors that there was no lease deed or any term providing for payment of whole compensation of the land comprised by Khasra Nos. 726 and 727 in case No. 232 of land comprised by khasra No. 679 in case No. 227 of land comprised by Khasra Nos. 417, 420, 422 and 423 in case No. 293. It is thus obvious that the proprietors of the land comprised by these Khasra Nos. shall be entitled to capitalised value, assessed at 20 times the rental value and the remaining compensation shall be payable to the lessees. I propose to allow the proprietors the capitualized value at 20 times the rental value and not a specific proportion of the compensation, in view of the fact that they shall continue to receive the rental value every year by way of interest on the amount payable to them calculated at the rate of 5 per cent per annum as if the land had not been acquired." After about 6 years, the petitioners filed execution petition against the State of Haryana and the Land Acquisition Collector for grant of compensation in terms of judgments dated 21.1.1974 of District Judge, Gurgaon. During the pendency of the execution application, respondents No. 3 and 4 filed an application dated 17.4.1982 with the prayer that payment of enhanced compensation to the lessees may be deferred because the counsel, who had appeared on their behalf in the reference case, did not have the instructions to make concession in favour of the lessees. The petitioners filed reply dated 24.4.1982 and contested the application filed by respondents Nos. 3 and 4. They also filed another petition on 2.4.1983 stating therein that the Executing Court did not have the jurisdiction to go behind the decree. Respondents No. 3 and 4 filed reply dated 16.7.1983 pleadings therein that the application filed by the petitioners was not maintainable.
(3.) AFTER hearing counsel for the parties, learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad declined to decide the execution application filed by the petitioners by observing that vide order dated 1.5.1982, a direction had been given to pay the entire decretal amount to the land owners subject to their furnishing bank guarantee and they had withdrawn the amount after furnishing the required bank guarantee and that the reference application filed by the lessees under Section 18 of the Act was pending.;