Point of Law: Civil Law – Land Issue - Award in lieu of acquisition of land was passed by respondent No.1 - Respondent No.1 either in favour of appellant or respondent No.2. It goes without saying that respondent No.1/competent authority shall - If any dispute as to apportionment of amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom same or any part thereof is payable, then competent authority shall refer dispute to decision of Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within limits of whose jurisdiction land is situated.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

An application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to restrain respondent No.1/Land Acquisition Officer (NHAI) from releasing entire compensation amount in lieu of acquired structure in favour of respondent No.2 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge Sundarnagar, District Mandi, H.P. Aggrieved, instant appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.

2(i) Respondent No.1 acquired land comprised in Khasra No. 457 measuring 000910 bighas, situated in Mohal Thala, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., for Four Laning of the National Highway. Award in lieu of acquisition of this land was passed by respondent No.1 on 2.5.2016. Appellant and respondent No.2, were held entitled to the awarded amount in equal shares. Both of them have admittedly received their shares in the awarded amount.

2(ii) The award for the acquisition of structure standing over the land was separately announced on 27.1.2017. Rs. 59,04,719/was determined as compensation payable for the house/structure standing over the land. Respondent No.1 proceeded to pay the compensation in lieu of structure in favour of respondent No.2 in view of his alleged possession of the acquired structure. This was objected by appellant on the ground that he and respondent No.2 had jointly purchased the land and the structure, therefore, both of them are entitled to half share each in the compensation amount awarded not only for the acquired land but for the acquired structure as well.

2(iii) The plaintiff/appellant filed a civil suit for Permanent Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction under Sections 37, 38 and 39 of the Specific Relief Act before the learned District Judge Mandi on 26.05.2018. Relief clause of the plaint runs as under:

“It is, therefore respectfully prayed that a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction be also passed against the defendant No.1 not to release the whole amount of compensation pertaining to house in favour of defendant No.2 in any manner whatsoever, that a decree of mandatory injunction may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants by directing them to pay the 50% of the total compensation amount alongwith the interest to the plaintiff without and demur or any other relief which this Ld. Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the interest of justice.”

Alongwith the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed praying to restrain respondent No.1 from releasing the entire compensation of the structure in favour of respondent No.2 till the final disposal of the suit.

2(iv) Respondent No.2 in his reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 disputed the entitlement of the appellant for receiving the compensation amount, be it for land or for structure. His case was that the land and the house standing on it were in exclusive ownership and possession of respondent No.2. It was further pleaded that the appellant had given up his share over the land and structure in question in favour of respondent No.2 in lieu of share of respondent No.2 in another land and structure situated in Sundernagar, District Mandi.

Respondent No.1 in its separate reply filed to the application admitted that a dispute had arisen between the appellant and respondent No.2 with respect to release of the compensation amount in lieu of acquisition of the structure standing over the land. The stand taken by respondent No.1 was that in view of the objections raised by the appellant before respondent No.1 as well as considering the pendency of the civil suit filed by the appellant, the compensation amount determined in the award for the structure, had not been released and was withheld. Respondent No.1 further submitted that compensation amount would be disbursed as per the order of the Court. Relevant port