M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of a bunch of petitions* because common questions of law are involved therein. For proper adjudication of the controversy in hand at the outset we propose to notice the brief facts and the prayer made by the petitioners in various petitions, which are as under: CWP NO. 16745 OF 1991: The Malerkotla Improvement Trust -respondent No. 3 framed a development scheme under the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922 (for brevity, 'the 1922 Act'). The said scheme was sanctioned under Section 42(2) of the 1922 Act by the State of Punjab and notified vide notification dated 23.1.1987. The land measuring 26 Bighas 13 Biswas belonging to the petitioners was acquired. On 20.1.1989, the Land Acquisition Collector passed Award No. 1 of 1988 -89 in respect of the acquired land (P -1). The petitioners claimed that on a portion of the acquired land, their residential houses with pucca construction were in existence but while announcing the award the Collector has not determined the amount of compensation in respect of superstructures. On 30.10.1991, the Collector passed an order directing the Executive Officer of the Improvement Trust, Malerkotla to inform the owners that an award with regard to the scheme would be announced on 13.11.1991 (P -2). On 13.11.1991, the Collector passed another award in respect of the superstructures, which was termed as 'Supplementary Award' (P -3). The petitioners challenged order dated 30.10.1991 and award dated 13.11.1991 (P -2 & P -3), passed by the Collector -respondent No. 3 being without jurisdiction as the same has been passed after statutory period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration which was made on 23.1.1987 under Section 42(2) of the 1922 Act. CWP NOS. 6848, 6849, 6850, 6851, 6852 AND 6896 OF 1993:
(2.) IN these petitions, the petitioner(s) have challenged notification dated 2.5.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the 1894 Act') and the award dated 30.4.1992 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Colonisation Department, Punjab -respondent No. 2. The petitionees) in these petitions purchased the land through various registered sale deeds and constructed their shops. On 2.5.1989, the respondent State of Punjab issued a notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act that land is required for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of a new Mandi Township at Patran, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala (P -1). Eventually, the award in respect of the acquired land was made on 30.4.1992 (P -2). The grievance of the petitioner(s) in these petitions is that since no award in respect of the structures standing on the acquired land has been passed within the statutory period of two years, therefore, the acquisition proceedings are not sustainable and liable to be set aside. No supplementary award could have been passed by virtue of Sections 11 and 11A of the 1894 Act. CWP No. 4754 of 1993 In this petition, the petitioners have challenged notifications dated 23.2.1989 and 30.3.1989 (P -l and P -2) issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act respectively. The respondent State of Punjab proposed to acquire land by issuing a notification dated 23.2.1989 under Section 4 for a public purpose, namely, for construction of Kandi Canal from 32325 RD Meters to 42762 RD Meters in Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur. A declaration under Section 6 was issued on 30.3.1989 acquiring the land of the petitioners. On 22.3.1991, the Collector passed four awards bearing Nos. 112 -A, 112 -B, 112 -Cand 112 -D assessing the compensation of the acquired land (P -3 to P -6). Again the grievance of the petitioners is that no award in respect of the super -structures as well as Tube well etc. was passed, therefore, the acquisition proceedings are not sustainable and liable to be set aside. CWP NO. 5356 OF 1996
(3.) IN this petition, the petitioners have challenged notifications dated 7.1.1994 and 8.8.1994 (P -l and P -2) issued by the respondent State of Haryana under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act respectively. The land in question has been acquired for the public purpose, namely, '66 -KV Sub -Station, Mulana of the Haryana State Electricity Board'. On 5.2.1996, the Collector passed an award in respect of the acquired land, the timber/fruit trees and the Kotha of the submersible tube well. However, the grievance of the petitioners is that no award in respect of the submersible tube well has been passed which was installed by them at a cost of '3,00,000/ -. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings are not sustainable and liable to be set aside. FUNDAMENTAL CHALLENGE:;