Dhan Devi And Ors vs Union Of India And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 6061 P&H

150+149+151

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH


LPA-506-2022

DHAN DEVI AND ORS                                 ....APPELLANTS

VS

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER                        ....RESPONDENTS

LPA-505-2022

ASHWANI KUMAR                                     ....APPELLANT

VS

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER                        ....RESPONDENTS

LPA-507-2022

SURESH PATHANIA                                   ....APPELLANT

VS

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER                        ....RESPONDENTS


                                               DECIDED ON: 04.07.2022


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present:   Mr. A.S. Bhatti, Advocate
           for the appellants.

           Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel
           for the respondent-Union of India.

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

By this common order, we dispose of three appeals i.e. LPA-

506-2022, LPA-505-2022 and LPA-507-2022. The facts are being taken

from LPA No.506 of 2022.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed by learned

1 of 4

Single Judge dated 29.03.2022, whereby the writ petition preferred by the

appellants challenging the order dated 18.10.2021 passed by the Sub

Divisional Magistrate-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Hoshiarpur

dismissing the application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894, stands challenged.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that

earlier the appellants have moved an application under Section 28 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for grant of relief. The said application was

dismissed by the Collector, which was challenged by the petitioners by filing

CWP No.38046 of 2018, which was decided by the learned Single Judge on

21.12.2018(Annexure P-5). In the said judgment, the learned Single Judge

had proceeded to dispose of the writ petition while giving liberty to the

appellants to avail of their alternative and efficacious remedy available to

them under Section 28-A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is in

pursuance thereto that an application under Section 28-A(3) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 was preferred by the appellants. The said application

has been dismissed by the Collector, Hoshiarpur vide order dated

18.10.2021 (Annexure P-6) on the ground of delay as more than 8 years had

passed from the date of passing of the judgment of the Supreme Court on

19.01.2011, whereby the acquisition proceedings qua the land, which was

the subject matter of the acquisition out of which the claim of the appellants

had arisen, were decided.

Counsel for the appellants having asserted that the appellants

having approached this Court by way of a writ petition, which was disposed

of vide order dated 21.12.2018 granting liberty to the appellants to move

2 of 4

an application under Section 28-A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the

said application could not have been dismissed as the same was filed within

a period of 6 months from the date of disposal of the writ petition by this

Court i.e. on 12.03.2019. He, therefore, contends that the impugned order

cannot be sustained.

This contention of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot

be accepted in the light of the fact that the factual position with regard to the

finalization of the proceedings with regard to the acquisition of the land had

attained finality upto the Supreme Court on 19.01.2011, whereby the appeal

of the Union of India stood dismissed. The date on which the right accrues

to the appellants was the said date and maximum period being 6 months had

to be taken into consideration from the said date for calculating limitation.

The appellants had approached the Collector by filing an

application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on

04.11.2011, which also was after a period of limitation as prescribed under

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 i.e. 3 months for proceedings under Section

28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but in any case not beyond 6

months. The application was initially dismissed which order had been

challenged by way of a writ petition, which writ petition was also decided

vide order dated 21.12.2018. In the said order, there is nothing mentioned by

this Court with regard to the period spent by the appellants in pursuing the

said remedy. Meaning thereby that the period spent in that process had not

been condoned or had to be taken into consideration because of availing a

wrongful remedy.

In any case, in the light of the settled proposition of law that the

3 of 4

Land Acquisition Collector is not a Court and therefore, unless provided for

in the statute, which is the maximum period of 6 months, the Collector could

not have granted any period beyond the said specified under the statute. The

Collector has, therefore, rightly proceeded to dismiss the application

preferred by the appellants under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894.

The judgment passed by learned Single Judge being based upon

proper appreciation of the facts and the legal position, do not call for any

interference by this Court in the present appeal.

The appeals, therefore, stand dismissed by upholding the order

dated 29.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge.

                                        (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
                                                JUDGE



                                               (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
04.07.2022                                          JUDGE
poonam negi

Whether speaking/reasoned        Yes/No
Whether reportable               Yes/No




                                      4 of 4