Whether court in land acquisition proceeding can permit addition of legal representative during execution of decree?

Though, served, the Respondent Nos.1
and 2 did not appear. They did not raise any
objection. On perusal of the impugned order, it
is explicit that relationship between the
petitioner and deceased Bansi is not in dispute.
Not only that but vide reply Exh.15, the
Respondent NO.1 Chandrabhagabai has shown her
willingness to give due share to the petitioner.
The application came to be rejected only on the
ground that the award shows names of the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and none other. This can
not be the ground to dislodge claim of the
petitioner. The Executing Court is required to
determine all questions which arise in the course
of execution of a decree as required U/s 47 of
the C.P.C.

5. In "Gangabai Gopaldas Mohata Vs.
Fulchand and others" 1997 (2) B.C.J.(S.C.) 347,
the Apex Court held that the Executing Court is
empowered to resolve the dispute relating to
claim of somebody regarding representation of the
decree holder and its denial by the decree
holder. In the present case, the Respondent Nos.
1 and 2 did not, in fact, denied legal rights
available to the petitioners. The application of
the petitioner could not be rejected only for the
reason that her name does not appear in the
decree. The impugned order is quite perverse and
is rendered without application of judicial mind.
Considering these aspects, the petition deserves
to be allowed.



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.887
OF 2008.

Suman  Bhausaheb Bhingardive  Vs Chandrabhagabai  Banshi
Bhingardive 

Citation;2009 (6) MH LJ 196
CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.
Date : 03.07.2009.

1. By this petition, the petitioner
challenges order rendered by the learned Joint
Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmednagar, on 18.7.2007,
whereby her application for addition of herself
as a party in Special Darkhast No.99/2001 came to
be rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel.
3. One Bansi and Raosaheb Bhingardive were
original holders of the land in question which
came to be acquired by the Respondent No.4. The
owners Bansi and Raosaheb were dissatisfied with
the quantum determined by the Reference Court
and, therefore, Reference U/s 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act was filed by them. In the
Reference Petition, the learned Judge of the
Civil Court was pleased to partly allowed the
claim and enhanced the compensation. An award
was rendered accordingly. In the meanwhile,
Bansi died. His widow Chandrabhagabai came to be
substituted as legal representative in his place.
She and said Raosaheb together filed Darkhast
proceedings before the learned Civil Judge
(S.D.), Ahmednagar. In the course of hearing of
the said Special Darkhast, the present petitioner
filed an application for her substitution as
legal representative of deceased Bansi
Bhingardive. She asserted that her husband was
minor when the Reference was filed and when
D.H.No.1 Chandrabhagabai came to be substituted

as a legal representative of deceased Bansi
Bhingardive. She asserted that she is one of the
legal representative of deceased Bansi being his
daughter-in-law. Therefore, she sought
impleadment as one of the D.H. The Executing
Court rejected her application.
4. Though, served, the Respondent Nos.1
and 2 did not appear. They did not raise any
objection. On perusal of the impugned order, it
is explicit that relationship between the
petitioner and deceased Bansi is not in dispute.
Not only that but vide reply Exh.15, the
Respondent NO.1 Chandrabhagabai has shown her
willingness to give due share to the petitioner.
The application came to be rejected only on the
ground that the award shows names of the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and none other. This can
not be the ground to dislodge claim of the
petitioner. The Executing Court is required to
determine all questions which arise in the course
of execution of a decree as required U/s 47 of
the C.P.C.

5. In "Gangabai Gopaldas Mohata Vs.
Fulchand and others" 1997 (2) B.C.J.(S.C.) 347,
the Apex Court held that the Executing Court is
empowered to resolve the dispute relating to
claim of somebody regarding representation of the
decree holder and its denial by the decree
holder. In the present case, the Respondent Nos.
1 and 2 did not, in fact, denied legal rights
available to the petitioners. The application of
the petitioner could not be rejected only for the
reason that her name does not appear in the
decree. The impugned order is quite perverse and
is rendered without application of judicial mind.
Considering these aspects, the petition deserves
to be allowed.
6. In the result, the petition is allowed.
The application of the petitioner shall be
allowed by the Executing Court and she be
impleaded as D.H.No.1-A and shall be given her
due share being legal heir of deceased Bansi
Bhingardive. The petition is accordingly
disposed of.
(V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.)

Print Page