Milkhi Ram vs State of Punjab

V.K. Jhanji, J.—The petitioners entered into agreement to purchase dated 27.1.1983 with respondents No. 2 to 8 in respect of land measuring 50 Kanals. The price fixed under the agreement was Rs. 35,000/ per acre. At the time of execution of agreement to purchase, a sum of Rs. 90,000/ was paid by the petitioners to respondents No. 2 to 8. Respondents No. 2 to 8 had agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 10.2.1983. However, respondents No. 2 to 8 failed to execute the sale deed as per agreement. The petitioners, in order to enforce the agreement, filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 27.1.1983. The trial Court dismissed the suit but the first appellate Court, vide order dated 22.12.1987, passed a decree for specific performance of the contract. Before the decree could be executed and in pursuance thereof the sale deed could be executed in favour of the petitioners, the land was acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 6.6.1988.

After the notification under Section 6 of the Act, notices were issued to owners under Section 9(1) and (2) of the Act. The petitioners filed an application before the Collector, Land Acquisition, contending that they have become owners as suit for specific performance has been decreed in their favour. The petitioners also made two applications: one under Section 18 of the Act and the other under Section 30 of the Act, asking the Collector to make a reference to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation as well as for the apportionment thereof.

The Collector vide impugned order dismissed the application of the petitioners mainly on the ground that the petitioners can be at the most considered to be prospective buyers as sale deed in pursuance of the decree for specific performance had not been executed in their favour.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, I find that the order of learned Collector is not sustainable in law. Admittedly, the land was agreed to be sold to the petitioners by respondents No. 2 to 8. Respondents No. 2 to 8 having failed to execute the sale deed, the petitioners had no option but to file a suit for specific performance of the agreement. The suit was decreed by the first appellate Court and in pursuance thereof only the sale deed was to be executed. Sale deed was to be executed by the vendors on payment of sale consideration. Respondents No. 2 to 8 have brought noting on the record before the Collector or in this Court to show that at any stage they offered to execute the sale deed and to receive the balance consideration. In view of this matter, it cannot be said that the petitioners are not person interested as defined in Section 3(b) of the Act. On the admitted facts, the sale deed was to be executed on or before 10.2.1983. In case respondents No. 2 to 8 had performed their part of the contract by executing sale deed on 10.2.1983 the petitioners would have become complete owner of the land which was agreed to be sold under the agreement. The fact that the petitioner did not get possession or could not get the sale deed executed till acquisition due to litigation as the suit for specific performance had been filed by them against respondents No. 2 to 8 persons who have already got a decree in their favour are definitely the persons aggrieved within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act and they have a right to ask the Collector to make reference under Section 18 as well as under Section 30 of the Act to the Civil Court.

Consequently, this revision petition is allowed. The order of the Collector dated 31.10.1988 is set aside. The Collector is directed that the applications filed by the petitioners before him under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act shall be forwarded to the District Judge for making a reference under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act. However, parties shall bear their own costs.