M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THE instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for setting aside of the award dated 21.7.2009 (P -8) and declaring the acquisition of agricultural land for commercial purposes as null and void. Another prayer made is that the compensation should be payable to the landowner on the basis of the market value as may be determined from the date of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') and not from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act has been issued. A declaration has been sought that Section 4 of the Act may be declared ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution as it confers arbitrary power.
(2.) IT is appropriate to mention that the petitioner has on his own showing filed CWP No. 13519 of 2010, which has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 2.8.2010 where similar issue was raised. The ground of dismissal are reflected in two concluding paras, which read as under : The only ground pressed into service by learned Sr. counsel while challenging the award is that the first proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act has not been complied with and as the same is mandatory, noncompliance of the same would render the award illegal. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be disputed with. In Suresh Chand's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has also held accordingly. However, there is nothing on record to even suggest that the Land Acquisition Collector, Karnal had not sought prior approval of the appropriate government or of such officer, authorized in this behalf by the appropriate government to the award proposed to be passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. In absence of any material in support of the contention as raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition, no prima facie case is made out for presuming non -compliance of the first proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act. Mere bald statement made by the petitioner is not sufficient to take cognizance thereof and interfere in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner has to prima facie make out a case for interference by this Court by demonstrating the illegality committed by the Authority under the Act while performing its duties or taking action under the Statute. The burden of proof with regard to the assertion made by the petitioner is to be discharged by him, which in the present case, he has failed. Further, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for challenging the award dated 31.7.2009 after a period of one year, with no explanation to this delay, which itself dissuades this Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction at this belated stage especially when the proceedings have attained finality. In respect of second ground for dismissal of the writ petition Mr. T.S. Doabia, learned senior counsel has urged that the petitioner can still press that issue because the Division Bench had refused to interfere on the ground that there was nothing on record to suggest that the Land Acquisition Collector, Karnal, had not sought prior approval of the appropriate government or of such officer, authorized in this behalf by the appropriate government. In that regard he has placed reliance on the information dated 31.5.2011 (P -1), where it has been stated that before issuing the award the prior approval was not obtained. The aforesaid information was obtained after dismissal of earlier petition on 2.8.2010. This information cannot constitute a basis for filing a fresh petition as fresh petition would suffer from the bar created by Order 2 Rule 2 and Explanation IV of Section 11 C.P.C. In this regard we place reliance on Rule 32 of Writ Jurisdiction (Punjab & Haryana) Rules 1976. A Five Judge Bench interpreted the provision in Teja Singh v. U.T. Chandigarh, 1982 (84) PLR 160.
(3.) THE second ground for dismissal was that the writ petition was filed one year after the pronouncement of the award. The award was pronounced on 31.7.2009 and the petition was filed in August, 2010. In that regard, the explanation has been tendered in para 14 & 15 of the writ petition, where it has been asserted that the notices under Section 9(3) or 9(4) of the Act were not issued and thus the petitioner was not aware. In para 15 it has also been asserted that the electricity supply to the land of the petitioner was disrupted for the reason of passing of the award and it was only then he came to know that his land has been acquired.;