Complaint in respect of functioning of Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan in respect of his functioning as Allahabad High Court Judge, now elevated as Chief Justice of another High Court
To,
My lord The Chief Justice Of India,
Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India,
New Delhi
Reference- Usurpation of Compensation amount of Rs. 22, 74, 966.28/= by getting the Sale Deed executed on 25 -11-1968, in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, retired from active army in 1965 due to malignant cancer, before Sub Registrar of Registration Department set aside in reference U/S 30 of Land Acquisition Act after 34 years of execution of sale deed in favour of its executer by denying the persuasion of remedy till disbursement of such amount in favour of Rank Trespassers in a calculated manner by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan
Subject- Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chahan refused to pass any order on the recall application as he pressurised the appellant to withdraw his First Appeal Defective No. 248/2002 on 17-11-2003 , when F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 he observed in open court that as per the ratio laid down in Dr. Grant Case, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. Sarda Devi Case , Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234, the Appeal U/S 54 of Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable, nor the sale deed dt. 25-11-1968 executed by Gaj Raj Singh in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala can be cancelled by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary 2nd A.D.J. Gaziabad can be cancelled. Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary 2nd A.D.J. Gaziabad has been removed from service. The other judge joining with Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chahan remained Junior to senior Advocate and participated F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 on behalf of the opposite parties, and despite calling for the file of F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 connected with writ petition No. 29591 of 1992 dismissed on 23/9/1996 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. M. Lal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. S. Siddhu decided the matter on 17-11-2005 justifying the cancellation of sale deed dated 25-11-1968 in reference U/S 30 of Land Acquisition Act.
Brief Facts -Gajraj executed the Registered sale deed on 25-11-1968 for the consideration of an amount paid to him in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, retired from active army in 1965 due to malignant cancer, before Sub Registrar of Registration Department. U/s 56, 57 and 58 of the Evidence Act, since the sub- registrar of the registration department has made the endorsement regarding the transaction, and as such, the court below should have taken the judicial notice, to the registered sale deed, and the transaction made therein u/s 80 of the Evidence Act, no oral evidence could have set aside, a registered sale deed for which the presumption u/s 90 and 90-A, as amended in Uttar Pradesh, remained in existence, in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala . Paras Ram was in no manner entitled to usurp the property belonging to Raghubir on account of he being the son of Chaman Kali and Munshi, but he got an order obtained fraudulently by making an abuse of process for incorporating his name on 18/12/1981 from A. S. D. O. Ghaziabad and thus became entitled for the reference made U/S 11/30 of Land Acquisition Act, and got his name entered in compensation amounting to Rs. 22, 74,966.28 /= . Paras Ram filed successive writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, 19462 of 1999 and 19572 of 1999 while Gajraj also filed the writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and as such neither the Gajraj, nor the Paras Ram may be said to be the illiterate person, who does not know anything about registered sale deed executed by Gajraj on 25/11/1968 in favour of petitioner and as such inference drawn in the judgement dated 29/4/2002 passed by this Hon’ble Court in respect of bonfide of Gajraj is uncalled for and the judgement dated 29/4/2002 and decree dated 4/5/2002 are liable to be set aside by allowing the present application seeking revival of the matter in Defectve First Appeal No. (248) of 2002 . 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. writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 alongwith writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and also the order dated 10-4-2002 obtained by Paras Ram after dismissal of writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 on 23-9-1996. The issuance of writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus are totally based on different relief sought for in the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 than the prayer made in the defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002.
Chapter V Rule 8 of High Court Rules seeking connection of all 4 writ petitions bearing writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999, writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002 by nominating bench of division bench, the following report was submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Justice and his lordship has taken decision by an order dated 17.11.2003 by nominating bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan J. the order passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice.
In the meantime since the appellant on account of his being pauper and thus unable to pay the court fees moved an application under Order 44 Rule 1 C.P.C. in Defective First Appeal No. (248) of 2002.,as the opposition was made by the counsel Senior Advocate of Paras Ram and Gajraj on the said application.
That not only this the counsel for Paras Ram and Gajraj have raised their objections regarding the pendency of defective appeal as well as writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 being pursued simultaneously and at this stage when they have built up the pressure, then on account of settled proposition of law declared in case of Dr. Grant case reported in A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 237 followed by case of State of Bihar vs. Sharda Devi 2003 S. C. C. (3) 128, Mehar Rusi Dalal 2004 S.C.C. (7) 362, it was permitted to withdraw the defective First Appeal to the counsel for the appellant, that he may not proceed the first appeal on account of non-availability of such a huge amount of court fees amounting to Rs. 1,71,032.50 paise.
That ultimately when the matter came up for hearing on 10-11-2005 then the counsel appearing on behalf of Paras Ram in writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 sought for withdrawal of recall application filed against the order dated 23-9-1996 being dismissed as not pressed.
That on 17-11-2005 in the judgement passed in writ petition no. 38064 of 2002, the preliminary objections raised on behalf of respondent no. 4 and 5 have been upheld and writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 was dismissed.
Hon’ble Court has taken into consideration that writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 was having the identical prayer as that of prayer of first appeal for setting aside the judgement and decree dated 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 in L.A.R. No, 421 of 1992, the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 is barred on the ground of constructive res judicata.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kunhayamad vs. State of Kerala 2000 (6) SCC 359 has held that dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal simpliciter will not deprive the appellant to avail the remedy of review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. as the prohibition lies for filing the review is only after conversion of Special Leave to appeal is converted in Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus the prayer is sought for recall of the order dated 17-11-2003 passed in the present defective appeal under the wrong legal perceptions regarding the challenge made therein is based upon de hors to the provisions of section 30 of L.A. Act as well as non est and nullity within eyes of law.
Even the defective First Appeal No. 248/2002 withdrawn on 17-11-2003 on the persuasion of Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan , when his lordship observed in open court that as per the ratio laid down in Dr. Grant Case, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. Sarda Devi Case , Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234, the Appeal U/S 54 of Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable. Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan refused to pass any order on such application of recall of his lordship oral Prayer’s educative order dated 17.11.2003 and directed the matter to be listed on the ordinary Course. The other Senior Advocate , being the influencing lawyer got the payment of Rs. 22, 74,966.28 /= given to Gaj Raj Singh and Paras Ram through S.L.A.O. Gaziabad.
Hon’ble, the my lord the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India
That Major Jasbinder Singh Bala is retired from active army in 1965 due to malignant cancer. He is now running at the age of about 82 years with the uncertainty regarding his life due to many ailments and heart trouble. His Excellency the President of India Sri Rajendra Prasad on 4.2.1953 appreciated Major Jasbinder Singh Bala for his dedicated services in Active Army regarding his sincerity, courage and conduct. However, after fighting for the nation for about 25 years, he retired prematurely. That Gajraj executed the Registered sale deed in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala on 25-11-1968 for the consideration of an amount paid to him before Sub Registrar of Registration Department. The Registered sale deed, executed in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala by Gajraj s/o Raghubir, R/o village-prahladgarhi, pargana Loni ,Tehsil & District- Ghaziabad was in respect of land of khasara no. 445- Area 2 Bigha 3 Biswa and khasara no 639- Area 5 Bigha in khata no.26 in1375 Fasli, which was exclusively recorded in the name of Gajraj, wherein it was particularly mentioned, that there is no co-sharer and claimant over the land in dispute. Thus it was not open for Gajraj to repudiate the aforesaid undertaking mention in the sale deed. That Gajraj sold another land to Major Jasbinder Singh Bala on 08/02/1967 having Khasara No 197 comprising of 2 Beeghas and 11 Bishwa situated at prahaladgari and since the aforesaid land got lesser compensation as such the objection in respect of selling the said land unauthorisely by Gajraj was not raised by Paras Ram and Gajraj. That it has been submitted that a collusive suit bearing case no.5 of 1970 was filed by Paras Ram against Gajraj alleging therein that Paras Ram was posthumously born after the death of Raghubir Singh ,while he was actualy born from Chaman Kali and Munshi ‘( not his father)and of such he is not entitled for half share in the said property. However, by order dated 12/5/1971 in the proceedings U/S 229-H/ 209 of U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act, it was directed that except by the exclusion of such plot, in which the registered sale deeds have been executed by Gajraj, Paras Ram is entitled to half of the share in the aforesaid plots.
That Paras Ram filed this collusive suit under section 229-B and209 U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act Bearing case No 5 of 1970 without impleading Major Jasbinder Singh Bala , in which, the claim set up by him that he was allegedly posthumously born after the death of Raghubir Singh, the father of Gaj Raj Singh and thus was having half share in all the land belonging to Gaj Raj and the land sold by Gaj Raj to the Petitioner and Other Persons were excluded in his share.
That Gaj Raj has sold other lands also through registered sale deed duly executed on 1/12/1966 and on 8/2/1967 in favour of petitioner. The name of the petitioner remained mentioned in these sale deeds, but Paras Ram did not raise any dispute in pursuance of these sale deeds regarding his entitlement of his share. The dispute was raised only in regard to sale deed executed on 25/11/1968, in which the compensation assessed, while making an award of rupees 22,74,966/-and 28 paisa.
That thus u/s 56, 57 and 58 of the Evidence Act, since the sub- registrar of the registration department has made the endorsement regarding the transaction, and as such, the court below should have taken the judicial notice, to the registered sale deed, and the transaction made therein u/s 80 of the Evidence Act, no oral evidence could have set aside, a registered sale deed for which the presumption u/s 90 and 90-A, as amended in Uttar Pradesh, remained in existence, in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala .
That subject, to the aforesaid objection raised at the very onset, and making the denial to rights conferred with Gaj Raj and Paras Ram on the basis of an exparte collusive suit, for getting the name of Paras Ram illegally in the award, the matter was contested before the court below.
That in the judgement dated 12. 5. 1971, it is mentioned especially for the purposes of demonstrating the findings on the issue no. 3, in which it is clearly mentioned that since the plots regarding which the sale deed has been executed, have been excluded, this issue need not be discussed.
That since the name of other person Ram kishan was already deleted by the order dated 27.4.1971, as such the aforesaid judgement dated 12.5.1971 was confined only to the extent of such plots in which the sale deed were not executed in favour of different parties namely Ram Kishan . Major Jasbinder Singh Bala and Kanshi Ram, as referred in the subsequent judgement.
That this was on account of these facts, that Additional Commissioner has rejected the Revision by judgement dated 2/6/1976 which was filed challenging the order passed by Additional S. D. O. Ghaziabad on 12/9/1975 rejecting the application of Paras Ram for Amaldaramad.
That despite the rejection of claim up to the stage of Additional Commissioner, the Paras Ram managed to manipulate for circumventing the effect of finality of the order passed by Additional Commissioner, moved an application before Asst. S. D. O. in 1981 with a prayer to record his name to Amaldaramad to the extent of held of its share. In the aforesaid application he got the plot no. 445 and 639 included, which was belonging to the petitioner and finality has been arrived in respect of these plots by the final judgement dated 2/6/1976 Revisional court by exclusion of these plots for mutation in favour of Paras Ram.
That these Persons even after being lost Upto the stage of Revision No.144 of 1975-76 on 2/6/1976 in the mutation proceedings, Paras Ram got his name included to the half portion of share land by an fraudulent, misconceived , void–ab-initio and ex-parte order dated 18/12/1981 passed by the Asst. S. D. O. in respect of these plots belonging to the petitioner in the sheer abuse of the process of the Revenue courts. The name of Paras Ram, on the basis of fraudulent aforesaid entry made in Revenue Record, appeared in the impugned award to half of the total amount which was legally required to be paid to the petitioner namely Major Jasbinder Singh Bala in land acquisition proceedings and as such the challenge was made before the S.L.A.O and also in the court below.
That this matter was finalized up to the stage of Additional Commissioner Meerut Division in revision no. 144/ 1975-1976 by order dated 26/1976 wherein it was held that land pertaining to Major Jasbinder Singh Bala shall remain excluded in pursuance of the order obtained exparte on 12/5/1971 by Paras Ram in collusion with Gajraj. The said order dated 2/6/1976 became final in the mutation proceedings. However, on 10/12/1981 , Paras Ram got his name recorded again in revenue records along with the name of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala to the extent of half of share when the plots no. 445 and 629 are 7.3 Bighas were acquired under Land Acquisition proceedings.
That in the meantime the land was acquired by the state Govt. and as such a suit was filed by Gajraj U/S 229 B of U. P. L. A. Z. R. Act seeking the declaration to the extent of further half of share of remaining land apart from share of Paras Ram alleged to have already been decided between the parties. The aforesaid proceedings are still pending before A. S. D. O. Gaziabad.
That it is well proposition of Law that recording of name in the mutation proceedings has not conferred any title upon recorded tenure holder. It has been held inre, Nirman Singh versus Rudra Pratap Singh A. I. R. 1926 Privy Council page 100, Nageshwar Bux Singh versus H. Ganesha A. I. R. 1920 Privy Council page 46, Durga Prasad versus Ghanshayam Das A. I. R. 1948 Privy Council page 210, Ramanna versus Samtha Murthi A. I. R. 1961 page 361, Mohindar Singh versus State of Punjab A. I. R. 1977 S. C. page 2012, Vatti Cherukuru Village Panchayat versus Noori Venkata Rama Dixithule 1991 A. I. R. S. C. W. page 1303 and in Naval Shankar Ishwar Dawe versus State of Gujrat A. I. R. 1994 S. C. page 1496 that mutation of name in revenue record are not evidence of title. Thus no rights have been accrued to Paras Ram/ petitioner for realisation of amount stated in the writ petition no 23591 of 1992 in the tune of Rs. 11,37,483.14 Paisa in the said proceedings.
That apart from this that writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 was filed by Paras Ram without impleading the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition . Fraud and Justice never dwell together (Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) as the fraud neither deceit defend or excuse no man (Fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent). Fraud avoids all the judicial acts and order obtain by fraud is a nullity and thereby rendering the entire action void. AIR 1994 SC 853 –S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath J T 1996(7) 135- Indian Bank Vs. M/s Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 8 SCC 512 –Bank of India Vs. Vijay Transport and others.
That the proceedings in L. A. R. no. 130 of 1996 filed by Paras Ram have been stayed in writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, while the proceedings of L. A. R. no.131 of 1996 U/S 18,30 filed by Gajraj have also been stayed in writ petition no. 19555 of 1999, while the present reference U/S 30 which was not a declaratory suit has been decided by the Court below on 29/4/2002. There may not be two parallel proceedings running simultaneously between the parties in the same court in which one may remain suspended and other may be decided in a premeditated manner despite the bar created under the statue. Thus the order and judgement dated 29/4/2002 and decree passed therein are liable to be set aside.
That Paras Ram and Gajraj have misrepresented themselves to be illiterate person, while both of them are very clever and shrood persons , who got the collusive suit filed and decided U/S 229B/ 209 of U. P. S. A. L. R. Act behind the back of petitioner on 12/5/1971 and despite the fact that Paras Ram is in no manner entitled to usurp the property belonging to Raghubir on account of he being the son of Chaman Kali and Munshi, but he got an order obtained fraudulently by making an abuse of process for incorporating his name on 18/12/1981 from A. S. D. O. Ghaziabad and thus became entitled for the reference made U/S 11/30 of Land Acquisition Act.
That this Paras Ram filed successive writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, 19462 of 1999 and 19572 of 1999 while Gajraj also filed the writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and as such neither the Gajraj, nor the Paras Ram may be said to be the illiterate person, who does not know anything about registered sale deed executed by Gajraj on 25/11/1968 in favour of petitioner and as such inference drawn in the judgement dated 29/4/2002 passed by this Hon’ble Court in respect of bonfide of Gajraj is uncalled for and the judgement dated 29/4/2002 and decree dated 4/5/2002 are liable to be set aside by allowing the present application.
That on the one hand all these things has been done, while on the other hand Paras Ram and Gajraj entered into compromise with Ram Kishan, the other person, who has purchased the land prior to judgement passed on 12/5/1971 in which the name of Ram Kishan was deleted by order dated 27/4/1971. Gajraj got the compromises given effect by permitting Ram Kishan to realise the entire compensation.
That in this manner the action of respondents namely Paras Ram and Gajraj is calculated abuse of process by making a mockery to the entire administration of justice through their reprehensible conduct by exercising their pernicious influence beyond the parties to action i.e. to the appellant Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, who is an old person running at the age of about 80 years after completing his sincere and dedicated services for maintaining the security and integrity of nation for 25 years in Army and as such a daring raid may not by allowed to be perpetuated by invaders of the due administration of justice.
That the conduct of Paras Ram is so reprehensible that by making the protest of having a misrepresented the said order dated 23/9/1996 in the Execution case no. 8 of 1997 as he moved an application on 29/11/1996. On the basis of said application he sought for having realisation of money in the tune of Rupees 11,33,983.40 Paisa. It was only on the basis of an application filed on behalf of State Govt. when such proceedings could have been stopped and thereafter a letter was issued on 27/10/1997 addressed to IIIrd Additional District Judge that against such a frivolous execution proceedings no. 8 of 1997 Paras Ram should be penalized by Rs. 50,000/-
That the pendency of writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 was to the exclusion of the proceedings decided on 29/4/2002 by the court of IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad.
That the writ petition no. 19572 of 1999, 19462 of 1999 and 19555 of 1999 are cognizable by the learned single judge, but no special appeal is maintainable arising out of the order in the said proceedings, while the first appeal no. (248) of 2002 is cognizable by the Division Bench as the valuation of said appeal is 22,74,966.28 Paise.
That on one hand the writ petition No. 29591 of 1992 was presented on 15/7/1992, while simultaneously the parallel proceedings in L. A. R. no. 421 of 1992 under section 30 of Land Acquisition Act was initiated in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. However, simultaneously other collateral proceedings having L. A. R. no. 130 of 1996 by Paras Ram and L. A. R. no. 131 of 1996 by Gajraj were initiated before the Additional District Judge U/S 18 30 of Land Acquisition Act, but the said proceedings U/S 18 of Land Acquisition Act were stayed in writ petition no. 19462 of 1999 ( Paras Ram vs II nd A. D. J. Ghaziabad and others) and writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 (Gajraj vs. II nd A. D. J. Ghaziabad & Others)on 12/5/1999. That even in the proceedings of L. A. R. no. 421 of 1992, the writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 was filed by Paras Ram in respect of order dated 7/4/1999 in which this Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct the Paras Ram to issue notice to Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, who has recorded his appearance in the aforesaid case in pursuance of order passed on 12/5/1999 in writ petition no. 19572 of 1999.
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.
That on 9.5.2002, the Petitioner filed the review application for reviewing the order dated 29.4.2002 , which has been dismiassed on 3.2.2003 by ( Smt. Sadhana Choudhary) the 2nd ADJ herself .
That thereafter the appellant moved an application before the District Judge, Ghaziabad on 11.7.2002 seeking transfer of review application through transfer application no. 397 of 2002 and when the District Judge rejected the said application on 17-8-2002, the prayer were incorporated in relations thereof in writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 alongwith writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and also the order dated 10-4-2002 obtained by Paras Ram after dismissal of writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 on 23-9-1996. The issuance of writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus are totally based on different relief sought for in the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 than the prayer made in the defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002.
That ultimately Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary then posted as IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad rejected the review application on 3-2-2003 by the detail order, wherein the jurisdictional error committed in passing the order dated 29-4-2002 was pointed out by the counsel for the appellant.
That the order passed in review application no. 31 of 2002 on 3-2-2003 was also challenged by filing an amendment application on 12-3-2003 bearing amendment application no…… of 2003 in writ petition no. 38064 of 2002. However, the counter affidavit was called upon on the aforesaid amendment application by an order dated 29-12-2003, but the said amendment application remained pending till the decision of writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 decided on 17.11.2005 on the ground of its maintainability.
On 12.3.2003 the amendment Application challenging the order dated 3.2.2003 rejecting the review Application No.31 of 02 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad is filed. That in this manner, there has been multiplicity of the proceedings taken place upto this stage by filing writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 ( Paras Ram vs. State of U.P ), writ petition no. 19462 of 1996 ( Paras Ram Vs. State of U.P.), writ petition No. 19555 of 1996 ( Gajraj vs. State of U.P.) and writ petition no. 19572 of 1996 ( Paras Ram versus State of U.P.) and also the order dated 10-4-2002, which were clearly demonstrative of the facts that against an Army Personnel, who has sacrificed his life for providing security to the citizens against external aggression is jeopardising his right not on account of only the manipulated and frivolous proceeding instituted by Paras Ram and Gajraj, but also on account of orders passed and obtained by this persons from this Hon’ble Court.
That according to the settled proposition of law advanced by the Apex Court, the latest decision on the point of making / forwarding the reference by S.L.A.O to the court of District judge/ Additional District Judge, the individual should be the ‘ PERSON INTERESTED’ as defined under section 9 (3) of L.A. Act (Union of India Vs. Pramod Gupta 2005 (12) SCC Page 1 and a stranger to the award namely Gajraj . who sold his land on 25.11.1968 through Registered Sale Deed is not entitled to claim his entitlement for compensation in the present reference . The present reference is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of A.I.R. 1965 S.C. Page 304 has clearly held that the pre-existing right of the person whose name does not find place in the award may not get entitlement for moving the reference either u/s 18 or 30 of the L.A. Act. That in case of Mehar Rusi Dalal Vs. Union of India (2004) 7 SCC 362 / A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 3491, it has been held that the person who is not entitled to make the reference u/s 18, the said person was not interested to get the decision for realisation of award u/s 30 regarding his alleged apportionment of the share. Thus the judgment dated 29.4.2002 is de hors to the provisions and non est. , which has no evidencery value against the right of the objector to realize the entire compensation.That the Hon’ble Supreme court has further held in case of Ahad Bross vs. State of M.P. 2005 ( 1 )SCC page 545 that a person who is not the’ person interested” may not agitate any claim u/s 18 of the L.A. Act. Thus the present reference filed by Gajraj is liable to be rejected.
That the objector had already moved to the S.L.A.O. for referring the reference u/s 18 on 6/7 April, 1989 to the District Judge Ghaziabad, but inspite the acceptance of the aforesaid application by the rival group of the claimants, the same has not been independently registered as the reference. Thus apart from being impleaded as the respondent, the objector was having his independent right to get the realisation of award of Rs. 22.74.966.28 Paise from the Court of I1nd Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad. The order and judgment passed on 29.4.2002 followed with a decree dated 4.5.2002 is a nullity and non est for having evidence value to curtail the right of the objector for realisation of compensation. The review application after due amendment in the prayer of the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 filed by the objector is still pending before the Hon’ble High Court.
That in this manner the claim of the objector is squarely covered within the purview of maintainability of application of award independently as well as by virtue of being impleaded in the present reference by order dated 7.4.1999 which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble High court on 10.11.2005 rejecting the writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 filed by Gajraj.
That this stage on 29-4-2002 the L.A.R. No. 421 of 1992 was decided as de hors to the said provisions of apportionment of the compensation between the ‘INTERESTED PERSON’, which could not have the jurisdiction entail to decide it as a “DISPUTE” nor the adjudication of “ PRE-EXISTENT RIGHT ”, if any, could have been taken place by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary, II Additional District judge, Ghaziabad declaring Paras Ram and Gajraj, being entitled to get the compensation of 50 – 50 percent calculated as Rs. 22,74,966.28 Paise i.e. each were entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs.11,37,483.14 Paise.
That surprisingly the decree was also prepared of said amount on 4-5-2002 against which the appellant fled review application on 9-5-2002 seeking review of the order dated 29-4-2002 passed by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary, II Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad.
That on 9-5-2002 the appellant filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble court bearing writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 with the following prayers :-
1) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from disbursement of amount awarded in pursuance of judgement dated 29-4-2002 in L.A.R. No, 421 of 1992 under section 30 of Land Acquisition Act, during the pendency of Reference 18 of the Act between the parties.
2) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to declaration of the amount of Rs.22,966.28 paise on the basis of impugned judgement dated 29-4-2002 in favour of respondent no. 4 and 5 in the proceedings u/s 30 decided like a declaratory suit by setting aside the registered sale deed executed on 25-11-1968 as unconstitutional and void.
3) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17-8-2002 passed by respondent mo.6 rejecting the transfer application no, 397 of 2002,
4) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus in the alternative that proceedings of review application no. 31 of 2002 may kindly be directed to be decided by some other Addl. District judge in view of the fact that matter was referred to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for initiating an enquiry and for directing the same to be decided by the Court nominated by District Judge, Ghaziabad.
5) To issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case.”
That in the meantime, since the memo of appeal was also prepared in July, 2002 for which the appellant was not sure as to whether the Ad-volerum court fees amounting to Rs. 1,71,032.50 Paise is required to be paid or not ?, after filing the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 ( Major Jasbinder Singh Bala Vs. II Addl. District Judge Ghaziabad & others), it was deemed proper to filed the defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002.
That the facts regarding preparation of the First Appeal was clearly mention in the Paragraph no. 42 of the writ petition, which states the clear picture emerged at the time of filing the writ petition on 5-9-2002 and regarding the preparation of memo of appeal stating Rs. 1,71,032.50 Paise reported as Ad-volerum court fees required to be paid. Thus filing of writ petition and filing of defective First Appeal being considered by taking all such back grounds into mind, it is submitted that the appellant has availed both the remedies with the different prayers, on which the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 and the defective First Appeal was filed on 5-9-2002. The paragraph no. 42 of the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 is reproduced as under :-
“ 42. That the Appellant is also submitted that there is no remedy for the Appellant to challenge the order and decree dated 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 respectively passed by IInd additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in L.A.R. no. 421 of 1992 under section 30 of land acquisition Act. There is proceedings of section 54 of Land acquisition Act to file the First Appeal in respect of cases decided u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, wherein a decree could have been passed after determination of amount in respect of entitlement of different claimants. In case the Appellant pursue the remedy of filing the appeal, he is required to deposits Rs.1.71.032.50 Paise as the Court fees for the said appeal as the courts fees ad-volerum is required to be paid. Thus the aforesaid appeal is neither amenable for the Appellant to have been filed by depositing such a huge amount for conferring his right specially under the circumstances when the respondents has himself proceeded to file the writ petition no. 23591 of 192, it has been held in Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234 that the award given by land Acquisition Officer is not a decree within meaning of section 2 (2) of C.P.C. and as such, the same is not tenable for execution by Civil court and thus the writ petition is amenable for realization of compensation awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer.”
That an application was filed by the appellant under Chapter V Rule 8 of High Court Rules seeking connection of all 4 writ petitions bearing writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999, writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002 by nominating bench of division bench, the following report was submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Justice and his lordship has taken decision by an order dated 17.11.2003 by nominating bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan J. the order passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice are reproduced as under :-
“ In his application dated 4th November 2003 filed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38064 / 2002, Sri Y.K. Saxena, Advocate, counsel for Appellant has made a prayer that the said writ petition be decided along with writ petition no. 23591/1992, Paras Ram Vs. State of U.P. and other, writ petition no. 19572/1999 Paras Ram Vs. IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad and others, writ petition no. 19462 /1999 Paras Ram Vs. IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, writ petition no. ------ Gajraj Vs. IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad ( the number of the writ petition has not been mentioned in the prayer but it appears that writ petition Number should be 19555/1999) and First Appeal Defective No. 248/2002, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
By order dated 09-09-2002, writ petition nos. 19462/1999 and 19555/1999 have been connected with this writ petition ( W.P. No. 38064/2002 )
In the present writ petition (No. 38064/2002) the Appellant has prayed for issuing a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from disbursing the amount awarded in pursuance of judgment passed in L.A.R. 421/1992 (with respect to land Khasra No. 45 area 2-3-0 and Khasra No. 639, area 5-0-0), situated at Prahlad Garhi, Loni, Ghaziabad.
In writ petition no. 23591/2002 the Appellant has sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent to make payment of compensation in respect of the same land (Para No. 1 of this writ petition).
In writ petition No, 19572/1999, the Appellant has sought a relief of certiorari quashing order dated 07-0 –1999 rejecting the application of the Appellant to decide the point of res judicata preliminarily, and also seeking mandamus to decide the same. A prayer for stay of the proceedings of the said case has also been made. The case mentioned in the said petition is also in respect of the land ( para no. 4 of the petition).
In First Appeal Defective No. 248/2002 the award of compensation made in respect of the acquisition of the aforesaid land has been challenged.
In view of the aforesaid facts, all the above cases relates to the same subject matter.
Report submitted for kind perusal.”
“” The matters are assigned to the bench presided over by Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.””
Sd. Hon’ble The chief Justice Dated 17-11-2003
That in the meantime since the appellant on account of his being pauper and thus unable to pay the court fees moved an application under Order 44 Rule 1 C.P.C., the opposition was made by the counsel of Paras Ram and Gajraj on the said application.
That not only this the counsel for Paras Ram and Gajraj have raised their objections regarding the pendency of defective appeal as well as writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 being pursued simultaneously and at this stage when they have built up the pressure, then on account of settled proposition of law declared in case of Dr. Grant case reported in A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 237 followed by case of State of Bihar vs. Sharda Devi 2003 S. C. C. (3) 128, Mehar Rusi Dalal 2004 S.C.C. (7) 362, it was permitted to withdraw the defective First Appeal to the counsel for the appellant as the appellant has already requested to his counsel, that he may not proceed the first appeal on account of non-availability of such a huge amount of court fees amounting to Rs. 1,71,032.50 paise.
That the impleadment application was allowed by this Hon’ble Court on the same date having the impleadment of state of U.P. through Secretary Avas, Secretariat, Lucknow and District Magistrate/ Collector Ghaziabad as parties to array of respondents being respondent no. 7 and 8 respectively, which was also incorporated on 18.12.2003 by the counsel for the appellant, The order allowing the impleadment application and inviting counter affidavit on two amendment applications ( one for seeking quashing of order dated 3-2-2003 passed by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad for which amendment application was filed on 12-3-2003 and another amendment having writ of certiorari for setting aside the judgement dated 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 passed by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad ).
That the said orders were passed in view of facts that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down in number of cases including in case of Dr. Grant case (Supra ), Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad has not only committed an error by deciding the reference of section 30 of L. A. Act pertaining to apportionment like that of civil suit, but also decided the pre-existing right therein. The orders passed by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad on 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 are non est and nullity, which can appropriately be challenged by incorporating additional prayer and thus the burden of this Hon’ble court will be lightened for deciding the fact as to whether ad-volerum court fees is at all may be required to be paid and as to whether the appellant is an indigent person or not ?. Thus in this back ground coupled with incapability of appellant to pay the aforesaid court fees, the defective First Appeal was withdrawn by keeping into mind that same is not amenable against a judgment regarding apportionment of compensation claim decided under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.
That in this context, it is further submitted that as the appeal lies only against a judgement passed in reference under section 18 of L. A. Act i.e. under section 54 of L. A. Act and when the provisions of appeal are itself in existence in the aforesaid special enactment created by the Parliament, there may not be the appeal required to be filed under section 96 against the order and decree passed under section 30 of L. A. Act by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad having the adjudication of the said proceedings as that of civil suit and that too regarding pre-existing right fabricated on account of wrong mutation entry obtained by Paras Ram by committing fraud upon the statute and also to the proceedings of this Hon’ble Court, which were simultaneously conducted by them ( Paras Ram and Gajraj ) on the basis of which the bench presided over by DR. B.S. Chauhan was nominated by the Hon’ble Chief Justice. Thus withdrawal of defective first appeal may not construed as that of forfeiture of rights of appellant for ever as he has acted on the basis of legal advise taken from different lawyers of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the lawyers of this Hon’ble Court and thus without moving any application the defective first appeal was permitted to be withdrawn by the nominated bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
That ultimately on 10-11-2005, when the arguments were advanced by the counsel appearing on behalf of Paras Ram then all the 5 writ petitions were taken together and at that time an objection was raised that writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 us barred by constructive Res judicata on account of dismissal of defective first appeal no. (248) of 2002 filed in respect of similar relief. The counsel appearing on behalf of Paras Ram and Gajraj also raised the allegation of forum hunting. It is submitted that when the counsel for the appellant made counter allegations against Paras Ram and Gajraj regarding forum hunting by filing writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 and writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19572 of 1999, then all such writ petitions were sought to be withdrawn on 10-11-2005 itself.
That similarly the writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 were also sought to be withdrawn on 10-11-2005 as the allegation of forum hunting raised against the rank usurpers Paras Ram and Gajraj may not be leveled against them and as such they sought for withdrawal of all 4 writ petitions and the matter was confined only to writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 by forgiving all such back grounds remained there at the time of filing the aforesaid writ petition and connecting all such 5 writ petitions and defective appeal by an order dated 17-11-2003.
That ultimately when the matter came up for hearing on 10-11-2005 then the counsel appearing on behalf of Paras Ram in writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 sought for withdrawal of recall application filed against the order dated 23-9-1996 being dismissed as not pressed.
That on 17-11-2005 in the judgement passed in writ petition no. 38064 of 2002, the preliminary objections raised on behalf of respondent no. 4 and 5 have been upheld and writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 was dismissed.
That against the dismissal of writ petition no. 38064 of 2002, the appellant filed the Special Leave to Appeal no. 2946 of 2006 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which has been dismissed simplicitor in limine without permitting the appellant to get it converted in Civil Appeal, may not bar the filing of the present Review application before this Hon’ble Court.
That since this Hon’ble Court has taken into consideration that writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 was having the identical prayer as that of prayer of first appeal for setting aside the judgement and decree dated 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 in L.A.R. No, 421 of 1992, the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 is barred on the ground of constructive res judicata.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kunhayamad vs. State of Kerala 2000 (6) SCC 359 has held that dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal simpliciter will not deprive the appellant to avail the remedy of review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. as the prohibition lies for filing the review is only after conversion of Special Leave to appeal in Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus the prayer is sought for recall of the order dated 17-11-2003 passed in the present defective appeal under the wrong legal perceptions regarding the challenge made therein is based upon de hors to the provisions of section 30 of L.A. Act as well as non est and nullity within eyes of law.
That the appellant is an Ex-Army personnel and on account of incapability of the appellant to approach this Hon’ble Court in the different forum of redressal of grievances and thus remained acting on the basis of advise given by the many prominent counsel of Hon’ble Supreme Court and only thereafter has instructed his counsel to withdraw the defective first appeal on 17-11-2003 as the appellant remained under the impression that writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 and three other writ petitions filed in the years 1999 are maintainable, while the appeal does not lies under section 54 and section 96 may not be attracted in the present case. That it is, however, in fact and circumstances of case that this Hon’ble Court has held on 17-11-2005 that writ petition no. 38064 0f 2002 is not maintainable and the Special Leave to Appeal filed against the said judgment has been dismissed summarily. The appellant is seeking recall of order dated 17-12-2003 that the appellant is a old person running at the age of 83 years and suffering from malign cancer. He has got the impairment of speech and is unable to walk like that of ordinary person. He has given a youth time for protecting integrity of our nation till his retirement after 1965 war and thus the appellant is tendering his unqualified apology for permitting him to withdraw his defective appeal by giving said instruction to his counsel under the wrong legal advise of prominent counsel practicing in Hon’ble Supreme Court. That under these circumstances, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the order dated 17-11-2003 may kindly be recalled / reviewed in the light of aforesaid circumstances of case. The defective appeal may be restored to its original number, as justice may be done with the rights of the appellant.
Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chahan refused to pass any order on the recall application as he pressurised the appellant to withdraw his First Appeal Defective No. 248/2002 on 17-11-2003 , when F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 he observed in open court that as per the ratio laid down in Dr. Grant Case, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. Sarda Devi Case , Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234, the Appeal U/S 54 of Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable, nor the sale deed dt. 25-11-1968 executed by Gaj Raj Singh in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala can be cancelled by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary 2nd A.D.J. Gaziabad can be cancelled. Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary 2nd A.D.J. Gaziabad has been removed from service. The other judge joining with Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chahan remained Junior to senior Advocate and participated F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 on behalf of the opposite parties, and despite calling for the file of F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 connected with writ petition No. 29591 of 1992 dismissed on 23/9/1996 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. M. Lal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. S. Siddhu decided the matter on 17-11-2005 justifying the cancellation of sale deed dated 25-11-1968 in reference U/S 30 of Land Acquisition Act.
Even the defective First Appeal No. 248/2002 withdrawn on 17-11-2003 on the persuasion of Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan , when his lordship observed in open court that as per the ratio laid down in Dr. Grant Case, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. Sarda Devi Case , Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234, the Appeal U/S 54 of Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable. Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan refused to pass any order on such application of recall of his lordship oral Prayer’s educative order dated 17.11.2003 and directed the matter to be listed on the ordinary Course. The other Senior Advocate, being the influencing lawyer got the payment of Rs. 22, 74,966.28 /= given to Gaj Raj Singh and Paras Ram through S.L.A.O. Gaziabad.
Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, S/o Sri Bachan Singh Bala,R/o- Bala Farm, Sector –9 Vaishali , Ghaziabad
To,
My lord The Chief Justice Of India,
Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India,
New Delhi
Reference- Usurpation of Compensation amount of Rs. 22, 74, 966.28/= by getting the Sale Deed executed on 25 -11-1968, in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, retired from active army in 1965 due to malignant cancer, before Sub Registrar of Registration Department set aside in reference U/S 30 of Land Acquisition Act after 34 years of execution of sale deed in favour of its executer by denying the persuasion of remedy till disbursement of such amount in favour of Rank Trespassers in a calculated manner by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan
Subject- Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chahan refused to pass any order on the recall application as he pressurised the appellant to withdraw his First Appeal Defective No. 248/2002 on 17-11-2003 , when F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 he observed in open court that as per the ratio laid down in Dr. Grant Case, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. Sarda Devi Case , Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234, the Appeal U/S 54 of Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable, nor the sale deed dt. 25-11-1968 executed by Gaj Raj Singh in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala can be cancelled by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary 2nd A.D.J. Gaziabad can be cancelled. Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary 2nd A.D.J. Gaziabad has been removed from service. The other judge joining with Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chahan remained Junior to senior Advocate and participated F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 on behalf of the opposite parties, and despite calling for the file of F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 connected with writ petition No. 29591 of 1992 dismissed on 23/9/1996 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. M. Lal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. S. Siddhu decided the matter on 17-11-2005 justifying the cancellation of sale deed dated 25-11-1968 in reference U/S 30 of Land Acquisition Act.
Brief Facts -Gajraj executed the Registered sale deed on 25-11-1968 for the consideration of an amount paid to him in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, retired from active army in 1965 due to malignant cancer, before Sub Registrar of Registration Department. U/s 56, 57 and 58 of the Evidence Act, since the sub- registrar of the registration department has made the endorsement regarding the transaction, and as such, the court below should have taken the judicial notice, to the registered sale deed, and the transaction made therein u/s 80 of the Evidence Act, no oral evidence could have set aside, a registered sale deed for which the presumption u/s 90 and 90-A, as amended in Uttar Pradesh, remained in existence, in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala . Paras Ram was in no manner entitled to usurp the property belonging to Raghubir on account of he being the son of Chaman Kali and Munshi, but he got an order obtained fraudulently by making an abuse of process for incorporating his name on 18/12/1981 from A. S. D. O. Ghaziabad and thus became entitled for the reference made U/S 11/30 of Land Acquisition Act, and got his name entered in compensation amounting to Rs. 22, 74,966.28 /= . Paras Ram filed successive writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, 19462 of 1999 and 19572 of 1999 while Gajraj also filed the writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and as such neither the Gajraj, nor the Paras Ram may be said to be the illiterate person, who does not know anything about registered sale deed executed by Gajraj on 25/11/1968 in favour of petitioner and as such inference drawn in the judgement dated 29/4/2002 passed by this Hon’ble Court in respect of bonfide of Gajraj is uncalled for and the judgement dated 29/4/2002 and decree dated 4/5/2002 are liable to be set aside by allowing the present application seeking revival of the matter in Defectve First Appeal No. (248) of 2002 . 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. writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 alongwith writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and also the order dated 10-4-2002 obtained by Paras Ram after dismissal of writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 on 23-9-1996. The issuance of writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus are totally based on different relief sought for in the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 than the prayer made in the defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002.
Chapter V Rule 8 of High Court Rules seeking connection of all 4 writ petitions bearing writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999, writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002 by nominating bench of division bench, the following report was submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Justice and his lordship has taken decision by an order dated 17.11.2003 by nominating bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan J. the order passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice.
In the meantime since the appellant on account of his being pauper and thus unable to pay the court fees moved an application under Order 44 Rule 1 C.P.C. in Defective First Appeal No. (248) of 2002.,as the opposition was made by the counsel Senior Advocate of Paras Ram and Gajraj on the said application.
That not only this the counsel for Paras Ram and Gajraj have raised their objections regarding the pendency of defective appeal as well as writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 being pursued simultaneously and at this stage when they have built up the pressure, then on account of settled proposition of law declared in case of Dr. Grant case reported in A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 237 followed by case of State of Bihar vs. Sharda Devi 2003 S. C. C. (3) 128, Mehar Rusi Dalal 2004 S.C.C. (7) 362, it was permitted to withdraw the defective First Appeal to the counsel for the appellant, that he may not proceed the first appeal on account of non-availability of such a huge amount of court fees amounting to Rs. 1,71,032.50 paise.
That ultimately when the matter came up for hearing on 10-11-2005 then the counsel appearing on behalf of Paras Ram in writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 sought for withdrawal of recall application filed against the order dated 23-9-1996 being dismissed as not pressed.
That on 17-11-2005 in the judgement passed in writ petition no. 38064 of 2002, the preliminary objections raised on behalf of respondent no. 4 and 5 have been upheld and writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 was dismissed.
Hon’ble Court has taken into consideration that writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 was having the identical prayer as that of prayer of first appeal for setting aside the judgement and decree dated 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 in L.A.R. No, 421 of 1992, the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 is barred on the ground of constructive res judicata.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kunhayamad vs. State of Kerala 2000 (6) SCC 359 has held that dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal simpliciter will not deprive the appellant to avail the remedy of review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. as the prohibition lies for filing the review is only after conversion of Special Leave to appeal is converted in Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus the prayer is sought for recall of the order dated 17-11-2003 passed in the present defective appeal under the wrong legal perceptions regarding the challenge made therein is based upon de hors to the provisions of section 30 of L.A. Act as well as non est and nullity within eyes of law.
Even the defective First Appeal No. 248/2002 withdrawn on 17-11-2003 on the persuasion of Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan , when his lordship observed in open court that as per the ratio laid down in Dr. Grant Case, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. Sarda Devi Case , Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234, the Appeal U/S 54 of Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable. Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan refused to pass any order on such application of recall of his lordship oral Prayer’s educative order dated 17.11.2003 and directed the matter to be listed on the ordinary Course. The other Senior Advocate , being the influencing lawyer got the payment of Rs. 22, 74,966.28 /= given to Gaj Raj Singh and Paras Ram through S.L.A.O. Gaziabad.
Hon’ble, the my lord the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India
That Major Jasbinder Singh Bala is retired from active army in 1965 due to malignant cancer. He is now running at the age of about 82 years with the uncertainty regarding his life due to many ailments and heart trouble. His Excellency the President of India Sri Rajendra Prasad on 4.2.1953 appreciated Major Jasbinder Singh Bala for his dedicated services in Active Army regarding his sincerity, courage and conduct. However, after fighting for the nation for about 25 years, he retired prematurely. That Gajraj executed the Registered sale deed in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala on 25-11-1968 for the consideration of an amount paid to him before Sub Registrar of Registration Department. The Registered sale deed, executed in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala by Gajraj s/o Raghubir, R/o village-prahladgarhi, pargana Loni ,Tehsil & District- Ghaziabad was in respect of land of khasara no. 445- Area 2 Bigha 3 Biswa and khasara no 639- Area 5 Bigha in khata no.26 in1375 Fasli, which was exclusively recorded in the name of Gajraj, wherein it was particularly mentioned, that there is no co-sharer and claimant over the land in dispute. Thus it was not open for Gajraj to repudiate the aforesaid undertaking mention in the sale deed. That Gajraj sold another land to Major Jasbinder Singh Bala on 08/02/1967 having Khasara No 197 comprising of 2 Beeghas and 11 Bishwa situated at prahaladgari and since the aforesaid land got lesser compensation as such the objection in respect of selling the said land unauthorisely by Gajraj was not raised by Paras Ram and Gajraj. That it has been submitted that a collusive suit bearing case no.5 of 1970 was filed by Paras Ram against Gajraj alleging therein that Paras Ram was posthumously born after the death of Raghubir Singh ,while he was actualy born from Chaman Kali and Munshi ‘( not his father)and of such he is not entitled for half share in the said property. However, by order dated 12/5/1971 in the proceedings U/S 229-H/ 209 of U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act, it was directed that except by the exclusion of such plot, in which the registered sale deeds have been executed by Gajraj, Paras Ram is entitled to half of the share in the aforesaid plots.
That Paras Ram filed this collusive suit under section 229-B and209 U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act Bearing case No 5 of 1970 without impleading Major Jasbinder Singh Bala , in which, the claim set up by him that he was allegedly posthumously born after the death of Raghubir Singh, the father of Gaj Raj Singh and thus was having half share in all the land belonging to Gaj Raj and the land sold by Gaj Raj to the Petitioner and Other Persons were excluded in his share.
That Gaj Raj has sold other lands also through registered sale deed duly executed on 1/12/1966 and on 8/2/1967 in favour of petitioner. The name of the petitioner remained mentioned in these sale deeds, but Paras Ram did not raise any dispute in pursuance of these sale deeds regarding his entitlement of his share. The dispute was raised only in regard to sale deed executed on 25/11/1968, in which the compensation assessed, while making an award of rupees 22,74,966/-and 28 paisa.
That thus u/s 56, 57 and 58 of the Evidence Act, since the sub- registrar of the registration department has made the endorsement regarding the transaction, and as such, the court below should have taken the judicial notice, to the registered sale deed, and the transaction made therein u/s 80 of the Evidence Act, no oral evidence could have set aside, a registered sale deed for which the presumption u/s 90 and 90-A, as amended in Uttar Pradesh, remained in existence, in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala .
That subject, to the aforesaid objection raised at the very onset, and making the denial to rights conferred with Gaj Raj and Paras Ram on the basis of an exparte collusive suit, for getting the name of Paras Ram illegally in the award, the matter was contested before the court below.
That in the judgement dated 12. 5. 1971, it is mentioned especially for the purposes of demonstrating the findings on the issue no. 3, in which it is clearly mentioned that since the plots regarding which the sale deed has been executed, have been excluded, this issue need not be discussed.
That since the name of other person Ram kishan was already deleted by the order dated 27.4.1971, as such the aforesaid judgement dated 12.5.1971 was confined only to the extent of such plots in which the sale deed were not executed in favour of different parties namely Ram Kishan . Major Jasbinder Singh Bala and Kanshi Ram, as referred in the subsequent judgement.
That this was on account of these facts, that Additional Commissioner has rejected the Revision by judgement dated 2/6/1976 which was filed challenging the order passed by Additional S. D. O. Ghaziabad on 12/9/1975 rejecting the application of Paras Ram for Amaldaramad.
That despite the rejection of claim up to the stage of Additional Commissioner, the Paras Ram managed to manipulate for circumventing the effect of finality of the order passed by Additional Commissioner, moved an application before Asst. S. D. O. in 1981 with a prayer to record his name to Amaldaramad to the extent of held of its share. In the aforesaid application he got the plot no. 445 and 639 included, which was belonging to the petitioner and finality has been arrived in respect of these plots by the final judgement dated 2/6/1976 Revisional court by exclusion of these plots for mutation in favour of Paras Ram.
That these Persons even after being lost Upto the stage of Revision No.144 of 1975-76 on 2/6/1976 in the mutation proceedings, Paras Ram got his name included to the half portion of share land by an fraudulent, misconceived , void–ab-initio and ex-parte order dated 18/12/1981 passed by the Asst. S. D. O. in respect of these plots belonging to the petitioner in the sheer abuse of the process of the Revenue courts. The name of Paras Ram, on the basis of fraudulent aforesaid entry made in Revenue Record, appeared in the impugned award to half of the total amount which was legally required to be paid to the petitioner namely Major Jasbinder Singh Bala in land acquisition proceedings and as such the challenge was made before the S.L.A.O and also in the court below.
That this matter was finalized up to the stage of Additional Commissioner Meerut Division in revision no. 144/ 1975-1976 by order dated 26/1976 wherein it was held that land pertaining to Major Jasbinder Singh Bala shall remain excluded in pursuance of the order obtained exparte on 12/5/1971 by Paras Ram in collusion with Gajraj. The said order dated 2/6/1976 became final in the mutation proceedings. However, on 10/12/1981 , Paras Ram got his name recorded again in revenue records along with the name of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala to the extent of half of share when the plots no. 445 and 629 are 7.3 Bighas were acquired under Land Acquisition proceedings.
That in the meantime the land was acquired by the state Govt. and as such a suit was filed by Gajraj U/S 229 B of U. P. L. A. Z. R. Act seeking the declaration to the extent of further half of share of remaining land apart from share of Paras Ram alleged to have already been decided between the parties. The aforesaid proceedings are still pending before A. S. D. O. Gaziabad.
That it is well proposition of Law that recording of name in the mutation proceedings has not conferred any title upon recorded tenure holder. It has been held inre, Nirman Singh versus Rudra Pratap Singh A. I. R. 1926 Privy Council page 100, Nageshwar Bux Singh versus H. Ganesha A. I. R. 1920 Privy Council page 46, Durga Prasad versus Ghanshayam Das A. I. R. 1948 Privy Council page 210, Ramanna versus Samtha Murthi A. I. R. 1961 page 361, Mohindar Singh versus State of Punjab A. I. R. 1977 S. C. page 2012, Vatti Cherukuru Village Panchayat versus Noori Venkata Rama Dixithule 1991 A. I. R. S. C. W. page 1303 and in Naval Shankar Ishwar Dawe versus State of Gujrat A. I. R. 1994 S. C. page 1496 that mutation of name in revenue record are not evidence of title. Thus no rights have been accrued to Paras Ram/ petitioner for realisation of amount stated in the writ petition no 23591 of 1992 in the tune of Rs. 11,37,483.14 Paisa in the said proceedings.
That apart from this that writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 was filed by Paras Ram without impleading the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition . Fraud and Justice never dwell together (Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) as the fraud neither deceit defend or excuse no man (Fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent). Fraud avoids all the judicial acts and order obtain by fraud is a nullity and thereby rendering the entire action void. AIR 1994 SC 853 –S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath J T 1996(7) 135- Indian Bank Vs. M/s Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 8 SCC 512 –Bank of India Vs. Vijay Transport and others.
That the proceedings in L. A. R. no. 130 of 1996 filed by Paras Ram have been stayed in writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, while the proceedings of L. A. R. no.131 of 1996 U/S 18,30 filed by Gajraj have also been stayed in writ petition no. 19555 of 1999, while the present reference U/S 30 which was not a declaratory suit has been decided by the Court below on 29/4/2002. There may not be two parallel proceedings running simultaneously between the parties in the same court in which one may remain suspended and other may be decided in a premeditated manner despite the bar created under the statue. Thus the order and judgement dated 29/4/2002 and decree passed therein are liable to be set aside.
That Paras Ram and Gajraj have misrepresented themselves to be illiterate person, while both of them are very clever and shrood persons , who got the collusive suit filed and decided U/S 229B/ 209 of U. P. S. A. L. R. Act behind the back of petitioner on 12/5/1971 and despite the fact that Paras Ram is in no manner entitled to usurp the property belonging to Raghubir on account of he being the son of Chaman Kali and Munshi, but he got an order obtained fraudulently by making an abuse of process for incorporating his name on 18/12/1981 from A. S. D. O. Ghaziabad and thus became entitled for the reference made U/S 11/30 of Land Acquisition Act.
That this Paras Ram filed successive writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, 19462 of 1999 and 19572 of 1999 while Gajraj also filed the writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and as such neither the Gajraj, nor the Paras Ram may be said to be the illiterate person, who does not know anything about registered sale deed executed by Gajraj on 25/11/1968 in favour of petitioner and as such inference drawn in the judgement dated 29/4/2002 passed by this Hon’ble Court in respect of bonfide of Gajraj is uncalled for and the judgement dated 29/4/2002 and decree dated 4/5/2002 are liable to be set aside by allowing the present application.
That on the one hand all these things has been done, while on the other hand Paras Ram and Gajraj entered into compromise with Ram Kishan, the other person, who has purchased the land prior to judgement passed on 12/5/1971 in which the name of Ram Kishan was deleted by order dated 27/4/1971. Gajraj got the compromises given effect by permitting Ram Kishan to realise the entire compensation.
That in this manner the action of respondents namely Paras Ram and Gajraj is calculated abuse of process by making a mockery to the entire administration of justice through their reprehensible conduct by exercising their pernicious influence beyond the parties to action i.e. to the appellant Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, who is an old person running at the age of about 80 years after completing his sincere and dedicated services for maintaining the security and integrity of nation for 25 years in Army and as such a daring raid may not by allowed to be perpetuated by invaders of the due administration of justice.
That the conduct of Paras Ram is so reprehensible that by making the protest of having a misrepresented the said order dated 23/9/1996 in the Execution case no. 8 of 1997 as he moved an application on 29/11/1996. On the basis of said application he sought for having realisation of money in the tune of Rupees 11,33,983.40 Paisa. It was only on the basis of an application filed on behalf of State Govt. when such proceedings could have been stopped and thereafter a letter was issued on 27/10/1997 addressed to IIIrd Additional District Judge that against such a frivolous execution proceedings no. 8 of 1997 Paras Ram should be penalized by Rs. 50,000/-
That the pendency of writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 was to the exclusion of the proceedings decided on 29/4/2002 by the court of IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad.
That the writ petition no. 19572 of 1999, 19462 of 1999 and 19555 of 1999 are cognizable by the learned single judge, but no special appeal is maintainable arising out of the order in the said proceedings, while the first appeal no. (248) of 2002 is cognizable by the Division Bench as the valuation of said appeal is 22,74,966.28 Paise.
That on one hand the writ petition No. 29591 of 1992 was presented on 15/7/1992, while simultaneously the parallel proceedings in L. A. R. no. 421 of 1992 under section 30 of Land Acquisition Act was initiated in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. However, simultaneously other collateral proceedings having L. A. R. no. 130 of 1996 by Paras Ram and L. A. R. no. 131 of 1996 by Gajraj were initiated before the Additional District Judge U/S 18 30 of Land Acquisition Act, but the said proceedings U/S 18 of Land Acquisition Act were stayed in writ petition no. 19462 of 1999 ( Paras Ram vs II nd A. D. J. Ghaziabad and others) and writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 (Gajraj vs. II nd A. D. J. Ghaziabad & Others)on 12/5/1999. That even in the proceedings of L. A. R. no. 421 of 1992, the writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 was filed by Paras Ram in respect of order dated 7/4/1999 in which this Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct the Paras Ram to issue notice to Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, who has recorded his appearance in the aforesaid case in pursuance of order passed on 12/5/1999 in writ petition no. 19572 of 1999.
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.
That on 9.5.2002, the Petitioner filed the review application for reviewing the order dated 29.4.2002 , which has been dismiassed on 3.2.2003 by ( Smt. Sadhana Choudhary) the 2nd ADJ herself .
That thereafter the appellant moved an application before the District Judge, Ghaziabad on 11.7.2002 seeking transfer of review application through transfer application no. 397 of 2002 and when the District Judge rejected the said application on 17-8-2002, the prayer were incorporated in relations thereof in writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 alongwith writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and also the order dated 10-4-2002 obtained by Paras Ram after dismissal of writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 on 23-9-1996. The issuance of writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus are totally based on different relief sought for in the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 than the prayer made in the defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002.
That ultimately Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary then posted as IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad rejected the review application on 3-2-2003 by the detail order, wherein the jurisdictional error committed in passing the order dated 29-4-2002 was pointed out by the counsel for the appellant.
That the order passed in review application no. 31 of 2002 on 3-2-2003 was also challenged by filing an amendment application on 12-3-2003 bearing amendment application no…… of 2003 in writ petition no. 38064 of 2002. However, the counter affidavit was called upon on the aforesaid amendment application by an order dated 29-12-2003, but the said amendment application remained pending till the decision of writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 decided on 17.11.2005 on the ground of its maintainability.
On 12.3.2003 the amendment Application challenging the order dated 3.2.2003 rejecting the review Application No.31 of 02 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad is filed. That in this manner, there has been multiplicity of the proceedings taken place upto this stage by filing writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 ( Paras Ram vs. State of U.P ), writ petition no. 19462 of 1996 ( Paras Ram Vs. State of U.P.), writ petition No. 19555 of 1996 ( Gajraj vs. State of U.P.) and writ petition no. 19572 of 1996 ( Paras Ram versus State of U.P.) and also the order dated 10-4-2002, which were clearly demonstrative of the facts that against an Army Personnel, who has sacrificed his life for providing security to the citizens against external aggression is jeopardising his right not on account of only the manipulated and frivolous proceeding instituted by Paras Ram and Gajraj, but also on account of orders passed and obtained by this persons from this Hon’ble Court.
That according to the settled proposition of law advanced by the Apex Court, the latest decision on the point of making / forwarding the reference by S.L.A.O to the court of District judge/ Additional District Judge, the individual should be the ‘ PERSON INTERESTED’ as defined under section 9 (3) of L.A. Act (Union of India Vs. Pramod Gupta 2005 (12) SCC Page 1 and a stranger to the award namely Gajraj . who sold his land on 25.11.1968 through Registered Sale Deed is not entitled to claim his entitlement for compensation in the present reference . The present reference is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of A.I.R. 1965 S.C. Page 304 has clearly held that the pre-existing right of the person whose name does not find place in the award may not get entitlement for moving the reference either u/s 18 or 30 of the L.A. Act. That in case of Mehar Rusi Dalal Vs. Union of India (2004) 7 SCC 362 / A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 3491, it has been held that the person who is not entitled to make the reference u/s 18, the said person was not interested to get the decision for realisation of award u/s 30 regarding his alleged apportionment of the share. Thus the judgment dated 29.4.2002 is de hors to the provisions and non est. , which has no evidencery value against the right of the objector to realize the entire compensation.That the Hon’ble Supreme court has further held in case of Ahad Bross vs. State of M.P. 2005 ( 1 )SCC page 545 that a person who is not the’ person interested” may not agitate any claim u/s 18 of the L.A. Act. Thus the present reference filed by Gajraj is liable to be rejected.
That the objector had already moved to the S.L.A.O. for referring the reference u/s 18 on 6/7 April, 1989 to the District Judge Ghaziabad, but inspite the acceptance of the aforesaid application by the rival group of the claimants, the same has not been independently registered as the reference. Thus apart from being impleaded as the respondent, the objector was having his independent right to get the realisation of award of Rs. 22.74.966.28 Paise from the Court of I1nd Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad. The order and judgment passed on 29.4.2002 followed with a decree dated 4.5.2002 is a nullity and non est for having evidence value to curtail the right of the objector for realisation of compensation. The review application after due amendment in the prayer of the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 filed by the objector is still pending before the Hon’ble High Court.
That in this manner the claim of the objector is squarely covered within the purview of maintainability of application of award independently as well as by virtue of being impleaded in the present reference by order dated 7.4.1999 which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble High court on 10.11.2005 rejecting the writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 filed by Gajraj.
That this stage on 29-4-2002 the L.A.R. No. 421 of 1992 was decided as de hors to the said provisions of apportionment of the compensation between the ‘INTERESTED PERSON’, which could not have the jurisdiction entail to decide it as a “DISPUTE” nor the adjudication of “ PRE-EXISTENT RIGHT ”, if any, could have been taken place by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary, II Additional District judge, Ghaziabad declaring Paras Ram and Gajraj, being entitled to get the compensation of 50 – 50 percent calculated as Rs. 22,74,966.28 Paise i.e. each were entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs.11,37,483.14 Paise.
That surprisingly the decree was also prepared of said amount on 4-5-2002 against which the appellant fled review application on 9-5-2002 seeking review of the order dated 29-4-2002 passed by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary, II Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad.
That on 9-5-2002 the appellant filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble court bearing writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 with the following prayers :-
1) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from disbursement of amount awarded in pursuance of judgement dated 29-4-2002 in L.A.R. No, 421 of 1992 under section 30 of Land Acquisition Act, during the pendency of Reference 18 of the Act between the parties.
2) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to declaration of the amount of Rs.22,966.28 paise on the basis of impugned judgement dated 29-4-2002 in favour of respondent no. 4 and 5 in the proceedings u/s 30 decided like a declaratory suit by setting aside the registered sale deed executed on 25-11-1968 as unconstitutional and void.
3) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17-8-2002 passed by respondent mo.6 rejecting the transfer application no, 397 of 2002,
4) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus in the alternative that proceedings of review application no. 31 of 2002 may kindly be directed to be decided by some other Addl. District judge in view of the fact that matter was referred to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for initiating an enquiry and for directing the same to be decided by the Court nominated by District Judge, Ghaziabad.
5) To issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case.”
That in the meantime, since the memo of appeal was also prepared in July, 2002 for which the appellant was not sure as to whether the Ad-volerum court fees amounting to Rs. 1,71,032.50 Paise is required to be paid or not ?, after filing the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 ( Major Jasbinder Singh Bala Vs. II Addl. District Judge Ghaziabad & others), it was deemed proper to filed the defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002.
That the facts regarding preparation of the First Appeal was clearly mention in the Paragraph no. 42 of the writ petition, which states the clear picture emerged at the time of filing the writ petition on 5-9-2002 and regarding the preparation of memo of appeal stating Rs. 1,71,032.50 Paise reported as Ad-volerum court fees required to be paid. Thus filing of writ petition and filing of defective First Appeal being considered by taking all such back grounds into mind, it is submitted that the appellant has availed both the remedies with the different prayers, on which the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 and the defective First Appeal was filed on 5-9-2002. The paragraph no. 42 of the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 is reproduced as under :-
“ 42. That the Appellant is also submitted that there is no remedy for the Appellant to challenge the order and decree dated 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 respectively passed by IInd additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in L.A.R. no. 421 of 1992 under section 30 of land acquisition Act. There is proceedings of section 54 of Land acquisition Act to file the First Appeal in respect of cases decided u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, wherein a decree could have been passed after determination of amount in respect of entitlement of different claimants. In case the Appellant pursue the remedy of filing the appeal, he is required to deposits Rs.1.71.032.50 Paise as the Court fees for the said appeal as the courts fees ad-volerum is required to be paid. Thus the aforesaid appeal is neither amenable for the Appellant to have been filed by depositing such a huge amount for conferring his right specially under the circumstances when the respondents has himself proceeded to file the writ petition no. 23591 of 192, it has been held in Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234 that the award given by land Acquisition Officer is not a decree within meaning of section 2 (2) of C.P.C. and as such, the same is not tenable for execution by Civil court and thus the writ petition is amenable for realization of compensation awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer.”
That an application was filed by the appellant under Chapter V Rule 8 of High Court Rules seeking connection of all 4 writ petitions bearing writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999, writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002 by nominating bench of division bench, the following report was submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Justice and his lordship has taken decision by an order dated 17.11.2003 by nominating bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan J. the order passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice are reproduced as under :-
“ In his application dated 4th November 2003 filed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38064 / 2002, Sri Y.K. Saxena, Advocate, counsel for Appellant has made a prayer that the said writ petition be decided along with writ petition no. 23591/1992, Paras Ram Vs. State of U.P. and other, writ petition no. 19572/1999 Paras Ram Vs. IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad and others, writ petition no. 19462 /1999 Paras Ram Vs. IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, writ petition no. ------ Gajraj Vs. IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad ( the number of the writ petition has not been mentioned in the prayer but it appears that writ petition Number should be 19555/1999) and First Appeal Defective No. 248/2002, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
By order dated 09-09-2002, writ petition nos. 19462/1999 and 19555/1999 have been connected with this writ petition ( W.P. No. 38064/2002 )
In the present writ petition (No. 38064/2002) the Appellant has prayed for issuing a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from disbursing the amount awarded in pursuance of judgment passed in L.A.R. 421/1992 (with respect to land Khasra No. 45 area 2-3-0 and Khasra No. 639, area 5-0-0), situated at Prahlad Garhi, Loni, Ghaziabad.
In writ petition no. 23591/2002 the Appellant has sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent to make payment of compensation in respect of the same land (Para No. 1 of this writ petition).
In writ petition No, 19572/1999, the Appellant has sought a relief of certiorari quashing order dated 07-0 –1999 rejecting the application of the Appellant to decide the point of res judicata preliminarily, and also seeking mandamus to decide the same. A prayer for stay of the proceedings of the said case has also been made. The case mentioned in the said petition is also in respect of the land ( para no. 4 of the petition).
In First Appeal Defective No. 248/2002 the award of compensation made in respect of the acquisition of the aforesaid land has been challenged.
In view of the aforesaid facts, all the above cases relates to the same subject matter.
Report submitted for kind perusal.”
“” The matters are assigned to the bench presided over by Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.””
Sd. Hon’ble The chief Justice Dated 17-11-2003
That in the meantime since the appellant on account of his being pauper and thus unable to pay the court fees moved an application under Order 44 Rule 1 C.P.C., the opposition was made by the counsel of Paras Ram and Gajraj on the said application.
That not only this the counsel for Paras Ram and Gajraj have raised their objections regarding the pendency of defective appeal as well as writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 being pursued simultaneously and at this stage when they have built up the pressure, then on account of settled proposition of law declared in case of Dr. Grant case reported in A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 237 followed by case of State of Bihar vs. Sharda Devi 2003 S. C. C. (3) 128, Mehar Rusi Dalal 2004 S.C.C. (7) 362, it was permitted to withdraw the defective First Appeal to the counsel for the appellant as the appellant has already requested to his counsel, that he may not proceed the first appeal on account of non-availability of such a huge amount of court fees amounting to Rs. 1,71,032.50 paise.
That the impleadment application was allowed by this Hon’ble Court on the same date having the impleadment of state of U.P. through Secretary Avas, Secretariat, Lucknow and District Magistrate/ Collector Ghaziabad as parties to array of respondents being respondent no. 7 and 8 respectively, which was also incorporated on 18.12.2003 by the counsel for the appellant, The order allowing the impleadment application and inviting counter affidavit on two amendment applications ( one for seeking quashing of order dated 3-2-2003 passed by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad for which amendment application was filed on 12-3-2003 and another amendment having writ of certiorari for setting aside the judgement dated 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 passed by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad ).
That the said orders were passed in view of facts that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down in number of cases including in case of Dr. Grant case (Supra ), Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad has not only committed an error by deciding the reference of section 30 of L. A. Act pertaining to apportionment like that of civil suit, but also decided the pre-existing right therein. The orders passed by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad on 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 are non est and nullity, which can appropriately be challenged by incorporating additional prayer and thus the burden of this Hon’ble court will be lightened for deciding the fact as to whether ad-volerum court fees is at all may be required to be paid and as to whether the appellant is an indigent person or not ?. Thus in this back ground coupled with incapability of appellant to pay the aforesaid court fees, the defective First Appeal was withdrawn by keeping into mind that same is not amenable against a judgment regarding apportionment of compensation claim decided under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.
That in this context, it is further submitted that as the appeal lies only against a judgement passed in reference under section 18 of L. A. Act i.e. under section 54 of L. A. Act and when the provisions of appeal are itself in existence in the aforesaid special enactment created by the Parliament, there may not be the appeal required to be filed under section 96 against the order and decree passed under section 30 of L. A. Act by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad having the adjudication of the said proceedings as that of civil suit and that too regarding pre-existing right fabricated on account of wrong mutation entry obtained by Paras Ram by committing fraud upon the statute and also to the proceedings of this Hon’ble Court, which were simultaneously conducted by them ( Paras Ram and Gajraj ) on the basis of which the bench presided over by DR. B.S. Chauhan was nominated by the Hon’ble Chief Justice. Thus withdrawal of defective first appeal may not construed as that of forfeiture of rights of appellant for ever as he has acted on the basis of legal advise taken from different lawyers of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the lawyers of this Hon’ble Court and thus without moving any application the defective first appeal was permitted to be withdrawn by the nominated bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
That ultimately on 10-11-2005, when the arguments were advanced by the counsel appearing on behalf of Paras Ram then all the 5 writ petitions were taken together and at that time an objection was raised that writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 us barred by constructive Res judicata on account of dismissal of defective first appeal no. (248) of 2002 filed in respect of similar relief. The counsel appearing on behalf of Paras Ram and Gajraj also raised the allegation of forum hunting. It is submitted that when the counsel for the appellant made counter allegations against Paras Ram and Gajraj regarding forum hunting by filing writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 and writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19572 of 1999, then all such writ petitions were sought to be withdrawn on 10-11-2005 itself.
That similarly the writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 were also sought to be withdrawn on 10-11-2005 as the allegation of forum hunting raised against the rank usurpers Paras Ram and Gajraj may not be leveled against them and as such they sought for withdrawal of all 4 writ petitions and the matter was confined only to writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 by forgiving all such back grounds remained there at the time of filing the aforesaid writ petition and connecting all such 5 writ petitions and defective appeal by an order dated 17-11-2003.
That ultimately when the matter came up for hearing on 10-11-2005 then the counsel appearing on behalf of Paras Ram in writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 sought for withdrawal of recall application filed against the order dated 23-9-1996 being dismissed as not pressed.
That on 17-11-2005 in the judgement passed in writ petition no. 38064 of 2002, the preliminary objections raised on behalf of respondent no. 4 and 5 have been upheld and writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 was dismissed.
That against the dismissal of writ petition no. 38064 of 2002, the appellant filed the Special Leave to Appeal no. 2946 of 2006 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which has been dismissed simplicitor in limine without permitting the appellant to get it converted in Civil Appeal, may not bar the filing of the present Review application before this Hon’ble Court.
That since this Hon’ble Court has taken into consideration that writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 was having the identical prayer as that of prayer of first appeal for setting aside the judgement and decree dated 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 in L.A.R. No, 421 of 1992, the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 is barred on the ground of constructive res judicata.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kunhayamad vs. State of Kerala 2000 (6) SCC 359 has held that dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal simpliciter will not deprive the appellant to avail the remedy of review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. as the prohibition lies for filing the review is only after conversion of Special Leave to appeal in Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus the prayer is sought for recall of the order dated 17-11-2003 passed in the present defective appeal under the wrong legal perceptions regarding the challenge made therein is based upon de hors to the provisions of section 30 of L.A. Act as well as non est and nullity within eyes of law.
That the appellant is an Ex-Army personnel and on account of incapability of the appellant to approach this Hon’ble Court in the different forum of redressal of grievances and thus remained acting on the basis of advise given by the many prominent counsel of Hon’ble Supreme Court and only thereafter has instructed his counsel to withdraw the defective first appeal on 17-11-2003 as the appellant remained under the impression that writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 and three other writ petitions filed in the years 1999 are maintainable, while the appeal does not lies under section 54 and section 96 may not be attracted in the present case. That it is, however, in fact and circumstances of case that this Hon’ble Court has held on 17-11-2005 that writ petition no. 38064 0f 2002 is not maintainable and the Special Leave to Appeal filed against the said judgment has been dismissed summarily. The appellant is seeking recall of order dated 17-12-2003 that the appellant is a old person running at the age of 83 years and suffering from malign cancer. He has got the impairment of speech and is unable to walk like that of ordinary person. He has given a youth time for protecting integrity of our nation till his retirement after 1965 war and thus the appellant is tendering his unqualified apology for permitting him to withdraw his defective appeal by giving said instruction to his counsel under the wrong legal advise of prominent counsel practicing in Hon’ble Supreme Court. That under these circumstances, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the order dated 17-11-2003 may kindly be recalled / reviewed in the light of aforesaid circumstances of case. The defective appeal may be restored to its original number, as justice may be done with the rights of the appellant.
Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chahan refused to pass any order on the recall application as he pressurised the appellant to withdraw his First Appeal Defective No. 248/2002 on 17-11-2003 , when F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 he observed in open court that as per the ratio laid down in Dr. Grant Case, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. Sarda Devi Case , Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234, the Appeal U/S 54 of Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable, nor the sale deed dt. 25-11-1968 executed by Gaj Raj Singh in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala can be cancelled by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary 2nd A.D.J. Gaziabad can be cancelled. Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary 2nd A.D.J. Gaziabad has been removed from service. The other judge joining with Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chahan remained Junior to senior Advocate and participated F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 on behalf of the opposite parties, and despite calling for the file of F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 connected with writ petition No. 29591 of 1992 dismissed on 23/9/1996 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. M. Lal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. S. Siddhu decided the matter on 17-11-2005 justifying the cancellation of sale deed dated 25-11-1968 in reference U/S 30 of Land Acquisition Act.
Even the defective First Appeal No. 248/2002 withdrawn on 17-11-2003 on the persuasion of Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan , when his lordship observed in open court that as per the ratio laid down in Dr. Grant Case, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. Sarda Devi Case , Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234, the Appeal U/S 54 of Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable. Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan refused to pass any order on such application of recall of his lordship oral Prayer’s educative order dated 17.11.2003 and directed the matter to be listed on the ordinary Course. The other Senior Advocate, being the influencing lawyer got the payment of Rs. 22, 74,966.28 /= given to Gaj Raj Singh and Paras Ram through S.L.A.O. Gaziabad.
Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, S/o Sri Bachan Singh Bala,R/o- Bala Farm, Sector –9 Vaishali , Ghaziabad
No comments:
Post a Comment