Jasbir Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed with a prayer that directions be issued to the respondents to consider and decide representation dated 27.10.2010 (P6), filed by the petitioners, claiming compensation for the land, which has been used in excess by the respondents than the actual area of land acquired.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that in the year 1997, by issuing the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act), a long strip of land was acquired for construction of a drain. The drain was constructed immediately thereafter. Award was passed in the meantime and compensation was disbursed to the petitioners. Thereafter, they did nothing. If they were aggrieved on account of measurement of land, which they alleged was used in excess of the land acquired, they should have filed an application under Section 18 of the Act. Nothing was done for a period of more than 11 years. Thereafter, one application was moved before the revenue authorities with a prayer to conduct demarcation at the spot, which is shown to have been done on 8.7.2009/ 29.12.2009 (P2 and P3), wherein it is stated that some excess area has been used while digging up the drain. Thereafter, legal notice was sent to the respondents. In reply filed to the notice, following averments are made by the respondents:- "2. That contents of para No.2 are denied as govt. department has taken possession of the land only as per notification and as per approved alignment and no excess land has been acquired for construction of drain. However, department has no knowledge about the demarcation on 6.8.2009 on whose basis the claim is being made. 3. It is wrong to mention that demarcation of said land was made on 6.8.2009 in the presence of department which is factually wrong. Further submitted that the department has taken possession of the land in said killa Nos.10/17, 10/23 only as per notification mentioned in para No.1 and no land in other mentioned Khasra Nos. has been acquired vide the said notification. Also there is no question of acquiring/ taking possession of excess land as the drain at site exists only in the acquired land for which due compensation including solatium etc. has been paid at the time of acquired land for construction of said drain. Thus no question of paying more compensation to the complainant arises."
(3.) A reading of the facts mentioned above, clearly indicates that disputed questions of facts exist between the parties. Otherwise also, we are of the opinion that after such a long delay, no benefit can be extended to the petitioners in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, if so advised, may seek their remedy before the competent forum, as per law. Disposed of.;