- (1.) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to disturb their peaceful possession on the land in dispute as the acquisition proceedings on the basis of notification dated 13.12.1995 published three times has already lapsed as per Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, "the 2013 Act") as period of more than five years has passed prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and they have neither been paid compensation nor physical possession of the land has been taken by the respondents.
(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. Respondent No.2 - Improvement Trust Moga vide its resolution No.91 dated 13.12.1995 proposed to acquire 5 acres of land situated in the revenue estate of Village Patti Sandhuan and Mogal Jit Singh, District Moga for the purpose of housing accommodation under section 28(2) read with sections 24 and 25 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (in short, "the 1922 Act") which was published three times in the newspaper. The land where small residential plots owned by the petitioners out of which some were fully constructed while others were under construction, was acquired. According to the petitioners, as per provisions of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed as neither they have been paid any Compensation nor possession has been taken from them. Hence the instant writ petition by the petitioners.
(3.) A written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No.3 wherein it has been inter alia stated that the petitioners were not the owners of the land as per Jamabandis for the years 1988-89, 1993-94 and 1998-99 and in the column of ownership, the Central government has been shown to be the owner of the land. The petitioners also filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the Improvement Trust from taking forcible possession which was dismissed on 3.10.2009. Even the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 3.10.2009 was also dismissed by the Sessions Court, Moga on 22.12.2010. Further, the suit for declaration that the petitioners were owners in possession of the residential house was also dismissed vide judgment dated 15.7.2015 passed by the trial court. It has been further stated that majority of the land owners had been paid compensation and only few land owners had not been paid compensation due to dispute with regard to ownership of the land amongst the coowners. On these premises, prayer for dismissal of the petition has been made.;