GURMIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-323
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on September 24,2015

GURMIT SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
State of Punjab and Ors. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

NAZIR AHMAD V/S. KIND EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY SHAM GUPTA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.)By this order, we shall dispose of, CWP No. 14698 of 2007 and CWP No. 9974 of 2006 raising identical question of laws and facts regarding acquisition of land. For the facility of reference, the facts are being taken up from CWP No. 14698 of 2007 wherein the challenge is to the acquisition of land initiated vide notification dated 07.03.1979 under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') followed by a declaration dated 19.10.1979 under Sec. 6 of the Act for acquiring the land for construction of New Mandi Township at Phagwara. Award in pursuance of such notification was announced on 01.10.1982.
(2.)The petitioner challenged the acquisition proceedings before this Court by filing CWP No. 4675 of 1982 but the writ petition was dismissed on 10.12.1982. However, the Civil Appeal Nos. 2375 -83 of 1986 titled State of Punjab and others v/s. Chanan Singh and others, before Hon'ble Supreme Court was disposed of when the following order was passed: -
"In these appeals the notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 07.03.1979 and the declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act was published on 19.10.1979. Notices under Sec. 9 of the Act were issued to the respondents in the month of November, 1979. In the letter part of 1982 the respondents filed writ petitions in the High Court questioning the validity of the impugned notification relying upon the decision in Radhey Shyam Gupta and others v/s. State of Haryana and others, (A.I.R. 1982 P & H 519) which we do not approve. These writ petitions should have been dismissed by the High Court on the ground of delay. Instead of dismissing them the High Court proceeded to set aside the notifications relying upon the decision in Radhey Shyam's case (supra). We feel that the decision of the High Court is erroneous. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High court and dismiss the writ petitions filed before it. The Land Acquisition Officer shall proceed to pass the awards if he has not already passed them. He shall complete the proceedings within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

We are informed by Shri Uma Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents in civil appeal No. 2383 of 1986 that subsequent to the decision of the High Court quashing the notifications the respondents there in has constructed a building worth about two lakhs on the land in question. It is open to the Government to consider whether the area on which the building has been constructed may be withdrawn from acquisition. If the Government feels that the said area should be withdrawn from acquisition it may be proceed to issue appropriate notification under Sec. 48 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Subject to the above observations all the appeals are allowed. No order as to costs."

(3.)Even though the writ petition was dismissed on merits but in respect of the present land -owners there was a direction to consider as to whether the area on which the building has been constructed may be withdrawn from acquisition. It is thereafter, the State Government did not pass any order considering the construction raised except to state in the written statement filed that representation of the petitioner stands rejected vide order dated 21.08.2007. The said order has not even been appended with the reply.
;


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