Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmeet Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 December, 2022
CWP-30614-2018 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-30614-2018
Date of decision:- 07.12.2022
Gurmeet Kaur ....Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and ors. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Anu Pal, Sr. DAG, Punjab
Mr. Puneet Kansal, Advocate
for respondent No. 2 and 4.
***
Ritu Bahri, J.
In the instant petition, petitioner is seeking issuance of
direction to the respondents to restore the proprietary, attached, available
and legal and all other ancillary rights of the land measuring 12 Marlas i.e
1/6th share out of land measuring 3 kanals 12 marlas comprising of khasra
No. 14112/8373/3-12, Khewat No. 133, Khatauni No. 289, situated at
Faridkoat Kotkapura Road, Faridkot.
The facts in brief are that petitioner purchased the above land
on 05.12.2003, vide sale deed (P-1). Thereafter, on 15.05.2006 (P-2), the
respondent-State of Punjab issued the gazette notification intending to
1 of 5
acquire the land to raise a residential colony known as Lala Lajpat Rai
Nagar and total 6.318 acre which includes 12 marlas land of the petitioner
was acquired. The Improvement Trust has published the first publication in
the newspaper on 02.09.2005 (P-3) and thereafter issued notice on
24.04.2008 under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act (P-4) to which the
petitioner filed objections dated Nil and additional objections (P-5 and P-6
respectively). Finally an award dated 14.05.2008 (P-7) was passed. The
petitioner then filed a civil suit against the Improvement Trust and the said
suit was dismissed and even the appeal was also dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after a gap of
07 years, the scheme has become non-existent and deadwood and the same
is no more surviving qua the petitioner, keeping in view the settled law.
The petitioner is now thus seeking restoration of her rights in view of The
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and has given notice dated
20.10.2018 (P-9) in this regard.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in
continuous possession of her land in dispute, keeping in view the
photographs dated 06.11.2018 (P-10 to P-14).
On notice, a reply dated 21.12.2019 has been filed on behalf of
respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and at the very outset has mentioned that earlier
also petitioner filed CWP No. 836-2009 seeking quashing of acquisition
process under Section 36 and 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act,
1922 dated 24.04.2008. The said petition was disposed of on 29.07.2010 (R-
2/1) by giving direction to the respondents to assess the compensation in
respect of the building constructed upon the land under acquisition and
2 of 5
disburse the same within one month thereafter. The petitioner was given
liberty to avail the remedy in accordance with law for making a reference
incase she feel that the compensation awarded is less. In compliance of the
above order, the compensation was assessed at Rs.21,48,531/- and letter
dated 27.10.2010 (R-2/2) was also issued to the petitioner intimating her
that the said compensation be collected by her from the Land Acquisition
Collector cum SDM Faridkot. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed a suit
for permanent and mandatory injunction but the same was dismissed on
04.08.2017 (R-2/3) and it was held that on the basis of the evidence led
before the learned Court the petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of
permanent and mandatory injunction as prayed for. Further it was held that
on account of the amount having been deposited with the Land Acquisition
Collector, the suit for grant of mandatory injunction is not maintainable.
The appeal filed against the judgment dated 04.08.2017 was also dismissed
on 25.10.2018 (R-2/4).
To the same effect is the reply filed by respondent No. 1.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
It is not in dispute that this is the 3rd round of litigation initiated
by the petitioner. With respect of the argument of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the land of the petitioner has not been utilized for the purpose
for which it was acquired, reference at this stage can be made to Division
Bench judgment of this Court in a case of Ajaib Singh and others vs. State
of Punjab and others, decided on 04.12.2017 in CWP No. 9662-2015
wherein the plea of the petitioner was that the acquisition of the land by
Improvement Trust, Sangrur has lapsed in view of provisions of Section 24
(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
3 of 5
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This Court
referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in a case of Bhatinda
Improvement Trust vs. Madan Lal and others, 2016 (4) RCR (Civil) 682
wherein while relying upon the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court
in SLP (Civil) Nos. .8565-8567 of 2011 titled as Gurcharan Singh and
others versus State of Punjab and others, in para 25, it was observed as
under:-
"A close reading of Section 24 makes it clear that land
acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
short, 'the 1894 Act) are deemed to have lapsed in certain
cases which are indicated in the provision. Since the
acquisition of the subject land has taken place under the 1922
Act and not under the 1894 Act, Section 24 has no application
at all."
It has been opined that the 2013 Act has no application to the
acquisition of land under the 1922 Act, as it has its application only for the
acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
The above said judgment is directly applicable to the facts of
the present case as in the present case as well the proceedings were initiated
on 24.04.2008 (P-4) and the final award was passed on 14.05.2008 (P-7).
The proceedings cannot be said to have been lapsed in view of Section 24
(2) of of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This issue has
attained finality up to Hon'ble the Supreme Court as observed in Ajaib
Singh's case (supra).
Apart from the said fact, the petitioner has already availed her
4 of 5
remedy and this is the third round of litigation.
No merits.
Dismissed.
(RITU BAHRI)
JUDGE
07.12.2022 (MANISHA BATRA)
G Arora JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
