- (1.) This order will also dispose of Civil Revision Petition No. 3546 of 1987, as the question involved is common in both the cases.
(2.) The land of the petitioner was acquired vide notification dated 28.2.1980. The award was given by the Collector on 5.12.1980. No reference was claimed by the petitioners. The other landowners claimed reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned District Judge enhanced the compensation vide award dated 3.10.1984. The petitioner filed execution application claiming the same amount of compensation which was awarded to the other landowners who had claimed reference. The said execution application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide order dated 3.1.1987, which reads as under :- "Heard. The applicant is not a party to the decree. The executing Court is to execute the decree as it stands. Since no relief has been granted in favour of the applicant so the application is dismissed." The petitioner then moved another detailed application dated 22.1.1987, which was dismissed by the impugned order, dated 4.9.1987. According to the executing Court :- "In the instant case, the land in question was acquired on 28.2.1980 and the award was rendered by the Land Acquisition Collector on 5.12.1980. The present application has been filed on 17.1.1987. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the position of law emanating, the provision of section 151/152 CPC cannot be entertained and there is no jurisdiction for the review of the order as prayed for. The application being without any merit is dismissed."
(3.) Admittedly, the petitioner never challenged the order dated 3.1.1987. Any order passed subsequently refusing to review the said order could not be challenged by way of this revision petition. Apart from the above, there is nothing wrong or illegal in the impugned order as to be challenged in the revision petition. Similar matter has already been decided in Civil Revision No. 371 of 1988 (Shrimati Champa v. State of Haryana), decided on 3.3.1989. Reliance has been placed therein on the Supreme Court pronouncement in Mewa Ram v. State of Haryana, 1986 RevLR 488, which is to the following effect :- "Furthermore, there is no provision in the Act apart from Section 28A for re-opening of an award which has become final and conclusive. No doubt Section 28A now provides for the redetermination of the amount of compensation provided the conditions laid down therein are fulfilled. For such redetermination, the forum is the Collector and the application has to be made before him within thirty days from the date of the award, and the right is restricted to persons who had not applied for reference under section 18 of the Act. If these conditions were satisfied, the petitioners could have availed of the remedy provided under section 28A of the Act. In that event, section 25 would enure to their benefit. Any other view would lead to disastrous consequences not intended by the Legislature.";