IMPORTANT POINT
An illegitimate son of landowner, involved in murdering his own father-land owner not entitled for land acquisition compensation admissible to his murdered father.

Rakesh Sharma, J.—Heard Sri V.S. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the revisionists, Sri A.K. Sachan, and Sri P.K.S. Paliwal, learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. This revision under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code has come up for admission today. This revision is pending for admission since 6th July, 2009.

3. The revisionist has assailed the order dated 28.11.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST)/ Additional District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in execution case No. 24 of 1997. The revisionist claims himself to be son of the decree holder Late Sri Raghu Raj Singh who had sought recovery of the land acquisition compensation granted by the competent Court. The land acquisition execution case Raghu Raj Singh v. State of U.P. was pending disposal before the execution Court. One Sri Ghanshyam Das who has claimed himself to be transferee of Execution of decree on behalf of late Raghu Raj Singh. The name of Sri Ghanshyam Das was substituted in place of late Raghu Raj Singh as he had claimed himself to be a transferee seeking execution of decree on behalf of late Raghu Raj Singh. According to him he had acquired an actionable claim. The executing Court had rejected the application submitted by the revisionist seeking induction in the execution proceedings by writing a detailed order.

4. As per learned Counsel for the revisionist late Sri Raghu Raj Singh who was the owner of agricultural land plot Nos.577/1, 578/1 and 590/1 having an area measuring 3 Bigha, 15 Biswa, 14 Biswansis 5 Dhur situate in village Bhood, Pargana Baran, Tehsil and District Bulandshahar was father of Pankaj Singh, the revisionist. This land was acquired by the Bulandshahar Khurja Development Authority for the purpose of urban development. After completing the process of land acquisition an award for Rs.76,00,000 was made. The amount was to be paid us compensation Sri Raghu Raj Singh was made. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that Late Raghu Raj Singh had sought reference from the Court of District Judge, Bulandshahar which had enhanced the amount of compensation. Sri Raghu Raj Singh, landowner, was allowed Rs.345 per square yard as compensation. The father of the revisionist, namely, Raghu Raj Singh filed an execution case No.740 of 1995 seeking payment of compensation during pendency of the execution case. Sri Raghu Raj Singh suffered two heart attacks and his blood supply system was immensely disturbed and affected. Because of lack of supply of blood to the brain he became senile and his behaviour became absolutely abnormal. It has been alleged that the respondent No.1 Ghanshyam Das had taken revisionist father Raghu Raj Singh in his undue influence. They were trying to exploit the situation of serious illness of the revisionist father. The revisionist father Raghu Raj Singh was made to move an application for the substitution of his name in the execution proceedings. The substitution application was moved on the ground that the father of the revisionist had rightly transferred the execution of the decree to the tune of Rs.76,45,495 for a small sum of Rs.1,00,000 only. The actionable claim and execution of the decree was purchased by Ghanshyam Das. Armed with these documents Ghanshyam Das got himself substituted as transferee of the decree. When the father of the revisionist came to his senses, he has sought recall of the application seeking substitution of respondent No.1. However, under the evil influence respondent No.1 and his associates, the said application was got dismissed subsequently. Even the execution case No.240 of 1995 was dismissed in default and thereafter, another execution case No.24 of 1997 was filed either by forging signature of the father of the revisionist or getting his signatures on some plain papers.

5. The revisionist has never admitted these documents. The respondent No.1-Ghanshyam Das managed to get his name substituted in place of the father of the revisionst in the execution case No. 24 of 1997 v