That on one hand the petitioner is persuading the present remedy for realisation of alleged compensation in which the writ petition was finally dismissed on 23/9/1996 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. M. Lal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. S. Siddhu and without having any order being obtained on the review application, the order dated 10/4/2002 has been obtained by Paras Ram behind the back of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala. The aforesaid order passed by this Hon’ble Court is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court as justice may be done with the rights of bonfide title owner and actual receipient of the amount of compensation in the tune of Rs. 22,74, 966.28 Paisa. That although the collateral proceedings initiated in different forum are prohibited to run simultaneously in view of restriction imposed under section 10 of C. P. C. read with principle of constructive res judicata. acquiescence and estoppel. That at the very outset, it is most humbly submitted that the order passed on 29.4.2002 by the II A.D.J. Gaziabad in L.A.R No. 421 of 1992, U/S 30 of land Acquisition Act has been decided by impugned order and judgement beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the reference made regarding apportionment of the amount of compensation under the aforesaid provision. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent case of Sharada Devi Versus State of Bihar 2003 (3) SCC 128 has laid down that since under section 3 (b) and (c) of Land Acquisition Act, the definition of “person interested” and the “Collector” have been defined. That a dispute, as to the pre-existing right or interest in the property sought to be acquired, is not a “dispute” capable of being adjudicated upon or referred to the Civil Court for determination either u/s 30 of the Act. Thus the order passed u/s 30 on 29.4.2002 by the II A.D.J. suffers from lack of inherent jurisdiction and is therefore a nullity, and therefore liable to be declared so. That, the matter of apportionment does not fail within ambit of “Dispute” under section 30 of Land Acquisition Act, but it appears that the learned A. D. J. has passed the judgement and order dated 29/4/2002 in L. A. R. no. 421 of 1992 wholly without jurisdiction in the aforesaid matter while deciding the case U/S 30 of Land Acquisition Act as that of a declaratory suit, which is not permissible within eyes of law. That u/s 12 (1) and section 29 of the Land Acquisition Act, the finality of the award is attributed between the “persons interested”. The definition of “persons interested” speaks of or interest in the compensation to be made. Thus invoking section 30 of land Acquisition Act, to the pre-existing right on the land and entitlement of compensation, may only be left upon to be adjudicated by any independent proceedings. That the said order has been passed in derogation to present proceedings initiated by way of filing the present writ petition and the same is not illegal and void, but on account of making as abuse of process through reprehensible conduct of petitioner, the same are also contemptuous in the light of the case of Advocate General Bihar vs M/S Madhya Pradesh Khair Industry 1981 (3) S. C. C. 311. That the S. L. A. O. passed an order and Award on 19/9/1990 illegally, stating therein that although the compensation to the extent of half of the award as per the name being recorded in the revenue record in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala is payable, but the same in the tune of Rs. 11,33,983.40 Paisa is still required for disbursement, but the court below has further exceeded the power, propriety and jurisdiction in passing the impugned order depriving the petitioner from total amount of compensation beyond the scope of the reference made U/S 30 of land acquisition Act. That in the revenue records the name of Jasbinder Singh Bala was recorded from the dated of execution of Registered sale deed, which was still continuing. That ultimately the writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 was dismissed on 23/9/1996. Surprisingly without giving any notice to Major Jasbinder Singh Bala in furtherance of the alleged restoration application in writ petition No. 23591 of 1992, Paras Ram got an order ex party behind the back of the petitioner for disbursement of an amount of Rupees 11,37,483.14 Paisa . This an abuse of the process in calculated manners , which is a criminal contempt .Advocate General, Bihar Vs. M/S Kher Industries 1980 (3) SCC 311. On 29.4.2002, in the Impugn order in LAR NO.421 of 1992 has been passed by the II nd ADJ Ghaziabad under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act in which the registered sale deed dated 25.11.1968 executed about 34 years back by Gaj Raj has been set aside while on the basis of frivolous entry recorded by order dated 18. 12. 1981 fraudulently from Assistant SDM even after dismissal of the revision by Additional SDO and Additional Commissioner on 12.9. 1975 and 2.6.1976 respectively which is void and ab initio . That on one hand, the present proceedings U/S 30 are dealt with, while simultaneously the proceedings U/S 18 ,30 of Land Acquisition Act bearing L. A. R. no. 130 of 1996 filed by Paras Ram and L. A. R. no. 131 of 1996 by Gajraj are pending in the court of IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. In the aforesaid proceedings Jasbinder Singh Bala moved an application for impleading him as the party, which was allowed by order dated 8/4/1999. That feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order the writ petition no. 19462 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 were filed in which notices were issued to the deponent. That surprisingly enough to state that although a writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 has been filed for quashing the order dated 7/4/1999 passed by the Court below, in which in compliance of order of District Judge to decide the case expeditiously and the issues was directed to decide at one time of both the parties. It is submitted that Paras Ram has also sought for quashing the proceedings of L. A. R. no. 421 of 1992 which has been decided by the judgement dated 29/4/2002 in spite the pendency of writ petition no. 19572 of 1999. That the pendency of writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 filed by Paras Ram, wherein he has sought for setting aside the proceedings of Reference case no. 421 of 1992 on the issue of Res judicata and also sought for staying the further proceedings of reference no. 421 of 1992 pending before IInd A. D. J. Ghaziabad and as such since there was no occasion to proceed further in deciding the matter on 29/4/2002 during pendency of writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and as such the judgement and decree dated 29/4/2002 and 4/5/2002 are liable to be set aside as the said proceedings has been decided in derogation to the proceedings in writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 filed by Paras Ram.
Posted on: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 10:31:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015