S HARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(P&H)-2006-1-244
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on January 25,2006

S HARJIT SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The State of Punjab issued a notification dated 9.11.1979, Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The total area of the land defined in the aforesaid notification measured is 53 acres, 2 Kanals and 15 Marias. The land of the petitioners also falls within the ambit of the aforesaid area. A declaratory notification Under Section 6 of the Act, was issued on 8.3.1980. Notices Under Section 9 of the Act had been issued pursuant to which the petitioners were required to file their clarifications. In compliance thereof, the claims had been duly submitted in regard to the land measuring 13 acres (113 Kanals 12 Marias) belonging to the petitioners. The award dated June 16, 1987, was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector, copy Annexure P3. It has been averred in the award that the possession of the land had been taken on the date of the award dated June 16, 1982. The petitioners have contested this averment and have stated that the physical possession had not been taken as the same continues to be with the petitioners. It has also been averred that the award was never pronounced in the presence of the petitioners. It has also been averred that the award was not made on June 16, 1982, in fact was prepared on 9.2.1983, the endorsement forwarding the same to the District Collector, Ludhiana is shown to have been made on the aforestated date. It has been fairly admitted that the reference has been sought by the petitioners Under Section 18 of the Act but they have not received any compensation so far.
(2.) Notice had been issued by the Tehsildar exercising the powers of Collector Grade- 11, Ludhiana, for recovery of arrears of Rs. 25,900/-. However, individual recoveries had also been indicated to the petitioners and that on such sample notice has been appended as Annexure P4.This notice has been made the subject matter of challenge in the present petition and also the notification Under Section 4 and 6 of the Act, copy annexures P1 and P2.
(3.) Notice of motion was issued vide order dated May 4, 1984 and the recovery had been stayed till further orders. However, subsequently learned Single Judge modified the order vide order dated December 3, 1993, by passing the following order: In this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the quashing of the notifications dated November 8, 1979 and February 8, 1980 issued Under Section 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The validity of these notifications has been challenged only on the ground that no compensation has been awarded in respect of the structures standing thereon. In the written statement, there is no averment to the effect that there is any structure on the land. Faced with this situation, Mr. Doabia prays for a short adjournment to enable him to amend the writ petition. The request is opposed Mrs. Charu Tuli, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. Mrs. Tuli states that the petitioners have continued to be in possession of the land by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court in spite of the fact that the award was delivered as assessed by the Collector was duly deposited by the respondents. She further points out that references Under Section 18 were made in the year 1982 itself and even the appeals were decided by this Court in the year 1988. She prays that in case the petitioners want to amend the petition the interim order passed by this Court on December 5, 1984, regarding the maintenance of status quo as regards possession be vacated. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the interim order passed on December 5, 1984, is modified to the extent that the respondents shall be entitled to take possession of the land on which there was no structure at the time of the acquisition of the land. However, if on any land belonging to the petitioners, there was any structure at the time of the acquisition, the respondents shall not take possession thereof. The writ petition is adjourned to enable the learned Counsel for the petitioners to file an application for amendment of the writ petition.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.