L.N. Mittal, J.@mdashLand owners Sadhu Ram etc. have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing
order dated 5.2.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra.
2. Land of the petitioners was acquired by respondent-State of Haryana vide award No. 13 dated 22.2.1991 passed by Land Acquisition
Collector. The petitioners filed reference petition u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, ''the Act'') for enhancement of compensation
of their acquired land mentioned in the said reference petition. The learned Additional District Judge vide award dated 17.5.1993 enhanced the
compensation of the acquired land. In first appeal preferred by the land owners, this Court further enhanced the compensation. In letters patent
appeal, the compensation was further enhanced by this Court. Execution petition filed by the petitioners for recovery of the enhanced
compensation amount was disposed of as fully satisfied on payment of the enhanced compensation amount.
3. The petitioners thereafter filed fresh execution petition alleging that their land measuring 86 marlas being share in rectangle No. 31 khasra No.
13 min. (4-12) and another 13 min. (3-0) was not included in statement u/s 19 of the Act sent by Land Acquisition Collector. The petitioners
claimed enhanced compensation for the said land as well.
4. Respondent resisted the aforesaid execution petition alleging that the award sought to be executed does not relate to land of khasra No. 13
rectangle No. 31 for which enhanced compensation is being claimed by the petitioners.
5. Learned executing court i.e. learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide impugned order dated 5.2.2008 has dismissed the execution
petition. Feeling aggrieved, the land owners have preferred the instant revision petition.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that u/s 19 of the Act, it was the duty of the Land Acquisition Collector to have sent
details of the entire acquired land of the petitioners when reference petition filed by the petitioners u/s 18 of the Act was sent by the Land
Acquisition Collector to the District Judge and therefore, on account of lapse of the Land Acquisition Collector, the petitioners should not suffer.
8. The aforesaid contention although apparently attractive is bereft of any merit. It was not the fault of the Land Acquisition Collector but it was the
fault of the petitioners themselves because in the reference petition they described their land for which they wanted reference petition to be sent to
the District Judge u/s 18 of the Act and admittedly in the said reference petition, land of khasra No. 13 for which enhanced compensation is now
claimed was not mentioned. The Land Acquisition Collector accordingly sent the details of the land for which the petitioners themselves had filed
petition u/s 18 of the Act. Consequently, Land Acquisition Collector cannot be said to be at fault. On the other hand, the petitioners have to blame
themselves for the situation in which they find themselves.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of his aforesaid contention relied on judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Ram
Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. J.T. 1991(1) S.C. 582. However, the facts of the said case were completely different from the facts of
the instant case. In that case the land owners while describing their land in the schedule annexed with their petition u/s 18 of the Act had mentioned
khasra numbers and area and at the end mentioned ''etc. etc.''. Thus, it was apparent from the details of land submitted in that case by the land
owners that they had not given full description of their acquired land for which petition u/s 18 of the Act had been filed. In this view of the matter, it
was the duty of the Land Acquisition Collector in that case to have sent the complete details of the acquired land of the land owners who had filed
petition u/s 18 of the Act. In the instant case, however, the petitioners themselves gave complete description of their land for which they wanted
reference to be made to the District Judge u/s 18 of the Act. Secondly, in the case of Ram Kumar (supra) Additional District Judge decided the
reference petition u/s 18 of the Act vide judgment dated 15.1.1971 and the land owners filed application under sections 151 and 153 of the CPC
on 16.1.1971 i.e. on the next day of the passing of judgment by the Additional District Judge. In the instant case, however, Additional District
Judge decided the reference petition u/s 18 of the Act vide award dated 17.5.1993 whereas the instant execution petition was instituted on
12.11.2005 i.e. 12-1/2 years after the passing of the award by the Additional District Judge in reference petition filed by the petitioners u/s 18 of
the Act. Not only that, the petitioners even filed first appeal and letters patent appeal in this Court and execution petition filed by the petitioners for
enhanced compensation amount relating to land mentioned in petition u/s 18 of the Act was disposed of as fully satisfied on payment of enhanced
compensation amount as demanded by the petitioners. It was much thereafter that the instant execution petition claiming compensation for the land
of khasra No. 13 which was not there in petition u/s 18 of the Act was filed. Consequently, judgment in the case of Ram Kumar (supra) does not
come to the rescue of the petitioners herein.
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners next contended that the petitioners are only co-sharers in the land of khasra No. 13 and since other co-
sharers have been awarded enhanced compensation for land of said khasra No. 13, the petitioners as co-sharers are also entitled to same
enhanced compensation even without filing reference u/s 18 of the Act. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on judgment of this
Court in the case of Furkan Ali v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2007) 145 P.L.R. 474. This contention also cannot be accepted in the instant case
because the contention is completely beyond pleadings and evidence. There is no material on record to depict that other co-sharers of khasra No.
13 have received enhanced compensation. This plea was neither raised in the execution petition nor in evidence nor in arguments before the
executing court. Consequently, this plea which involved factual determination as well cannot be raised for the first time in the instant civil revision
petition.
11. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merit in the revision petition which is accordingly dismissed.