AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of CWP Nos.2290 and 2292 of 2001 as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issue involved therein is identical. However, the facts have been extracted from CWP No.2290 of 2001.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the relevant facts as narrated in the CWP No.2290 of 2001 are that Duli Chand son of late Shri Mange Ram, father of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 died on 12.5.2000. Agricultural land of the petitioners situated in the revenue estate of Village Nangal Kheri, Distirct Panipat was acquired by the State of Haryana vide its dated 18.3.1985 for Haryana Urban Development Authority for development of Sector 29 Panipat for commercial and residential plots. Dissatisfied with the decision of respondent No.4, the petitioners filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, "the 1894 Act"). Thereafter, they filed RFAs in this Court which were dismissed. Further, the father of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 filed LPA Nos. 18 and 19 of 1997 for enhancement of the compensation which were allowed by this Court vide order dated 27.8.1997. The enhanced compensation was released to the petitioners in installments in execution proceedings on 11.12.1998 and 19.3.1999. While depositing the compensation amount, the Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estate, Panchkula, respondent No.4 deducted Tax Deduction at source (TDS). Respondent No.4 had not issued certificate of TDS under Section 203 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners requested the respondent authorities for refund of the amount of TDS but no response was received. Thereafter, the father of the petitioners alongwith other petitioners sent representation/legal notice dated 28.4.2000, Annexure P.3 to the respondents through their counsel but still no action was taken. Hence the present writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the tax deducted at source by the respondents on the amount of compensation received by the petitioners was illegal. He urged that the petitioners had received interest under section 28 of the Act on the enhanced compensation and therefore, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF), (2009) 315 ITR 1, no TDS was deductible.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned action taken by the respondents.;