Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Kumar And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 December, 2022
LPA-741-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(i) LPA-741-2022
Ramesh Kumar and others ...... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents
(ii) LPA-824-2022
Dharam Pal and others ...... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents
Date of Decision : 01.12.2022
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
***
Present : Mr. V.B.Aggarwal, Advocate
for the appellants in both the appeals.
***
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J
This judgment shall dispose of aforesaid two Letters Patent
Appeals, both directed against the judgment dated 23.05.2022, passed by
the learned Single Bench vide which the writ petitions filed by the
appellants were dismissed.
The possession of the land of the appellants was illegally taken
by the State of Haryana in the year 1972 without acquiring the same. A
road leading from Village Babain to Village Bir Surja in District
Kurukshetra was also constructed on this land. This forced some of the
present appellants and other similarly situated persons to knock the doors of
1 of 4
this Court by way of a writ petition which was allowed vide order dated
19.11.2010 (Annexure P-1 with the writ petition) (reference to annexures
hereinafter shall indicate reference to annexures with the writ petition) and a
direction was issued to the State of Haryana to initiate acquisition
proceedings, granting liberty to the State to invoke emergency provisions as
envisaged under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1874 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act'). In compliance of the directions issued by this
Court, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued followed by a
declaration under Section 6 of the Act and finally award dated 27.04.2012
was announed. The State as also the land owners instituted Regular First
Appeals before this Court against the said award. During the course of
hearing of these appeals, an order dated 23.05.2017 (Annexure P-3) was
passed, stating that the State Government could be moved for claiming of
damages for having remained in unlawful possession of the acquired land
prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. On such
claim having been moved, award dated 07.06.2018 (Annexure P-4) was
passed awarding damages to the land owners.
Aggrieved by the quantum of damages awarded vide award
dated 07.06.2018, the writ petitions in question were preferred which have
now been dismissed by the learned Single Bench vide judgment dated
23.05.2022 , holding that writ jurisdiction could not have been invoked for
seeking enhancement in damages and the appellants were relegated to the
Civil Court for the redressal of their grievances.
Against the said judgment dated 23.05.2022, passed by the
learned Single Bench, the present appeals have been preferred.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have
2 of 4
perused the case files.
Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the
learned Single Bench erred in dismissing the writ petitions and that the
amount of compensation awarded by respondent No.4 was liable to be
enhanced by considering the escalation in prices from 1972 to 2011.
Learned counsel has referred to various orders passed by this Court from
time to time as also the orders passed by the authorities under the Act. To
support his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Huchanagouda vs. Assistant Commissioner
And Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. 2019 (5) R.C.R. (Civil) 663.
No doubt, the State of Haryana remained in unlawful
possession of the land of the appellants from 1972 till 2011 when the
notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued, that too after
intervention by this Court. The award passed after acquisition of the land is
already subject matter of challenge before this Court in separate appeals. In
so far as damages for unlawful possession of the land are concerned, the
same were assessed by respondent No.4 vide award dated 07.06.2018
(Annexure P-4). Whether this award is adequate or not would have to be
decided by leading evidence. The appellants would be required to prove
their stand by producing relevant oral/documentary evidence as may be
required by law. In any case, these questions cannot be gone into under the
writ jurisdiction. As rightly observed by the learned Single Bench, the
wrongful dispossession of the appellants without acquisition of their land is
an independent act for which even a civil suit for damages can be filed
which would give an appropriate opportunity to both sides to lead evidence
in support of their claims.
3 of 4
We have gone through the judgment relied upon by the learned
counsel for the appellants. In that case land was acquired for
implementation of a certain project and the award dated 08.03.2006 was
passed assessing the rate of the land acquired. In reference, the said rate
was enhanced. In appeal, the High Court granted 5% escalation while
comparing the market value determined in respect of an acquisition under
another notification prior to the notification in question. The matter finally
reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court
enhanced the rate of escalation to 10%. This judgment would not help the
appellants as the same was passed while assessing the market value of the
land acquired while in the present case, the appellants are seeking
enhancement of damages for which the escalation cannot be applied. In our
considered opinion, no error was committed by the learned Single Bench in
dismissing the writ petitions and the same does not warrant any interference.
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we do
not find any merit in the present appeals and the same are hereby dismissed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) (VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
01.12.2022
mamta
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
