Naresh Chander Jain, J. - (1.) This judgment of mine would dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 4081 of 1987 and 449 of 1988, both filed by Gopi Ram petitioner who claims to be the tenant of landowners, that is, private respondents. In the first instance, facts in Civil Writ Petition No. 4081 of 1987 may be dealt with. The petitioner filed this writ petition with the allegations that he was a tenant of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and, therefore, he was entitled to the amount of compensation for the land acquired by the Improvement Trust. It was further averred that all the references were decided on October 3, 1985 without issuing any notice to him and that the petitioner had no knowledge of the decision of the land references. The petitioner challenged the decision of the land references including the land reference No. 72/47 of 1978/1983 which was filed by him on merits as well as on the ground that the award was rendered ex parte without giving him an opportunity and at his back. When the matter came up for hearing before the Motion Bench, the following order was passed on July 15, 1987:- "The principal grievance raised in the writ petition is that the petitioner is entered in the revenue record as a tenant on the land in dispute and on an application for reference made by him the Collector had referred his case to the Tribunal for adjudication. It is further contended that the reference has been disposed of by the Tribunal without issuing any notice or providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner should make an application before the Tribunal bringing these facts to its notice and seeking relief therefrom. This writ petition is adjourned to 28th September, 1987 in the meanwhile." Thereafter the case was adjourned on certain dates and ultimately it was admitted on November 29, 1988.
(2.) As regards the factual position in Civil Writ Petition No. 449 of 1988, the petitioner has stated that in pursuance of the order passed by the Motion Bench, which has been reproduced above, he filed an application upon which order Annexure P-1 has been passed by District Judge, Sonepat. The order being short is reproduced below:-. "It has been pointed out that the present petition has been addressed to this Court as President, Tribunal Improvement Trust, Sonepat and the Notification of the tenure of the Tribunal has expired long ago. The correspondence between the Hon'ble High Court and the State Government is going on for further Notification and since at present this Court is not competent to function as President Tribunal Improvement Trust, the proceedings are stayed sine die and the record be consigned."
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has basically argued only one point. He submits that there being no President, Tribunal Improvement Trust in view of the expiry of the tenure of the Tribunal, he is entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandamus against the State of Haryana for appointment of President, Improvement Trust Tribunal so that his application Annexure P-12 can be decided. In Annexure P-12 the petitioner has stated that he was a tenant on the land of the landowners and that he was entitled for the amount of compensation in apportionment proceedings for which he sought reference No. 72/47 of 1978/1983 and that the references were decided on October 3, 1985 without issuing notice to him. He has further stated that the petitioner had no knowledge of the decision of the land references The judgment of the Tribunal is ex parte having been passed at his back. He requested the President of the Tribunal to decide the case on merits after hearing him. As has been observed above, it is the legality and validity of Annexure P-1 which has been challenged before this Court with a prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued appointing the President of the Tribunal so that his application can be disposed of. In the first instance, it be observed forthwith that Civil Writ Petition No. 4081 of 1987 has become in-fructuous because of filing of the application by the petitioner before the Tribunal seeking an appropriate relief. Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned Senior Advocate has brought to my notice that Civil Writ Petition No. 4081 of 1987 was filed against respondents No. 5 and 6 who passed away much before the filing of the writ petition. While he is right as regards the factual position is concerned, this argument does not go to the root of the case for declining relief to the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 449 of 1988 because in Civil Writ Petition No. 4081 of 1987 no relief is being granted to the petitioner. In fact the petitioner should have approached the Tribunal and could have done so without coming to this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 4081 of 1987. In view thereof, Civil Writ Petition No. 4081 of 1987 is ordered to be dismissed as infructuous.;