Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Sarup vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 March, 2022
CWP-6826-2020(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-6826-2020(O&M)
Date of decision:21.03.2022
Ram Sarup ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Hardip Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
By filing a writ petition, under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature
of certiorari to quash the judgment dated 03.12.2019, passed by the Principal
Civil Court of the district.
The Principal Civil Court has decided the petition under Section
3H(3) & (4) of the National Highway Act, 1956. The petitioner claims
apportionment of the compensation for the compulsory acquisition of the
land alleging that his forefathers were allotted the land in question which
was made cultivable after putting a lot of hard work. The petitioner also
claims that he has paid the rent. As per the revenue record, the land in
question is recorded to be owned by the Punjab Government, whereas the
petitioner is recorded as "Gair Marusi". In column No.9 of the jamabandi,
his status is recorded as Billa Lagan Bawaja Nazayaj Kabja" (unauthorized
occupant). The petitioner in order to prove his case produced the alleged rent
receipt Ex.PW1/2, which was also not proved in accordance with the
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The petitioner further claims
1 of 3
CWP-6826-2020(O&M) -2-
that he was entitled to the allotment in terms of the provisions of the Punjab
Allotment of State Government Act, 2016. In the present case, the land
came to be acquired in the year 2013.
Since, the petitioner failed to prove any right, title or interest in
the property, therefore, the application was dismissed.
This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
petitioner and with his able assistance perused the paper book.
The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that
there is a receipt showing payment of rent upto the year 2001. He submits
that in the absence of the receipt, the petitioner being in an unauthorized
possession for quite some time is entitled to some part of the compensation.
The learned counsel representing the petitioner has failed to
draw the attention of the court to any evidence led by the petitioner to prove
the alleged receipt in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872. The case set up by the petitioner is vague and contradictory. On
the one hand, the petitioner claims to be an allottee in possession, whereas
on the other hand, he claims to be a tenant. A perusal of the revenue record
exposes the falsity of the case of the petitioner as regards the right of
tenancy.
Furthermore, the revenue record which has a presumption of
truth as it is a official government record, that prepares, preserves and
maintains land record of the entire State, shows that the petitioner was an
unauthorized occupant. The attention of the Court was not drawn to any
provisions which entitles an unauthorized occupant to a share in the
compensation on compulsory acquisition of premises/property thereof.
While exercising the powers of a judicial review, the
2 of 3
CWP-6826-2020(O&M) -3-
jurisdiction of the High Court is limited. In the absence of perversity, the
judgment passed by a special Tribunal does not require interference.
Hence, dismissed.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
March 21, 2022 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
