- (1.) Defendants State of Punjab and others have filed this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge, Amritsar dated September 16, 1988 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs Sansar Preet Mandal and others (President and General Secretary of the Said Mandal) for declaration that the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) for acquiring plaintiffs land measuring 26 Kanals 10 Marlas, comprising Khasra Nos. 307, 308, 309, 323 and 327, situated in village Lopoke and the entire acquisition proceedings taken subsequently and award No. 1 of 1977 dated May 4, 1977 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Ajnala were illegal, contrary to the provisions of the law, principles of natural justice, arbitrary, mala fide, void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiffs, with consequential relief, restraining the defendants from taking possession of the aforesaid land in pursuance to the aforesaid acquisition proceedings and the award. The said suit was dismissed by Subordinate Judge I Class, Amritsar on January 17, 1983. Sansar Preet Mandal (World Love Union) was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. This society was founded by the well-known Punjabi writer, Shri Gurbax Singh Preetlari. The complex of the Mandal later came to be known as Preet Nagar. The officials of the Department of Fisheries, Punjab on August 27, 1975 visited Preet Nagar for setting up a Fish Seed Nursery. They contacted Shri Gurbax Singh, the President of the Mandal who assured them to go ahead with the project. On September 6, 1975 Shri Gurbax Singh gave his consent in writing. He was to part with the land on the price to be determined by the Revenue Department. Subsequently, the State of Punjab started proceedings under the Act for acquiring the said land. On March 31, 1976 notifications under section 4 and 6 of the Act were simultaneously issued. State of Punjab invoked the urgency provisions. Subsequently, on May 4, 1977 the Land Acquisition Collector made his award fixing in all Rs. 8,395/- as compensation for the land acquired which measured 26 Kanals 10 Marlas. It was on October 11, 1977 that the plaintiffs came to know about the said award. On December 15, 1979. One Hirdey Pal Singh is alleged to have received the said amount through cheque acting on behalf of Sansar Preet Mandal. The suit was filed on June 13, 1980. After the trial Court disposed of the suit and the appeal was pending, the defendants took possession of the land comprising Khasra No. 327. The plaintiffs, therefore, amended the plaint in order to claim relief of possession of land comprising Khasra No. 327.
(2.) The suit was contested by the State of Punjab and other defendants on differents grounds. The trial Court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 2. Whether the suit is within time ? OPD 3. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit ? OPD 4. Whether the notification and acquisition proceedings taken thereafter regarding the suit property are illegal, void and ineffective against the plaintiffs on the grounds as alleged in para 4 of the plaint ? OPD 5. Relief. The appellate Court framed the following two additional issues :- 1. Whether the appellant-plaintiffs are entitled to recover the possession of the suit land ? (OPP) 2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPP The report of the trial Court on these issues was obtained. As stated above, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The trial Court held that the suit was maintainable. However, the same was barred by time. The Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of section 52 of the Act. The acquisition proceedings were held to be invalid. Under the additional issued it was held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover possession to the land through Civil Court, as possession had been delivered by the Collector under the provisions of the Public Premises Act. The suit was held to be properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs holding that the suit was within time; the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit and the acquisition proceedings and the award were illegal and void. The defendants did not take possession of the land acquired except the land comprising Khasra No. 327 possession of which was ordered to be delivered to the plaintiffs. I have heard the counsel for the parties.
(3.) The eviction order was passed against the respondents under the Public Premises Act on which reliance was being placed by the appellants in order to show that possession of the acquired land was earlier taken which was recognized by the authority under the said Act while passing the order of eviction. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the said order of eviction was set aside on appeal by the Commissioner. Thus, the position remains as it was on the date of filing of the present suit. On the evidence produced it is to be decided whether the State had taken over possession of the land acquired or not.;