Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdev Kaur & Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 24 April, 2024
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056635-DB
CWP-24897-2018 -1- 2024:PHHC:056635-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP-24897-2018
Reserved on: 09.04.2024
Pronounced on: 24.04.2024
GURDEV KAUR AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
Argued by: Mr. Surjit Singh Swaich, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate and
Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate
for respondents No. 2 and 3.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Through the instant petition, the petitioners seek the
quashing of notification bearing No. 6/9/2000-1 HGI/501 dated
23.01.2004 (Annexure P-6), and, also seek the quashing of notification
bearing No.6/02-2005-1 HGI/437 dated 18.01.2005 (Annexure P-7).
The said notification(s) were respectively issued under Sections 4 and 6
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act of 1894'). The
consequent thereto award bearing No. 494 dated 26.12.2006, has also
been asked to be quashed, and, set aside.
2. The above espoused writ claims become founded upon the
provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (hereinafter for short called as 'the Act of 2013'), whereunders the
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056635-DB
CWP-24897-2018 -2- 2024:PHHC:056635-DB
petitioners become empowered to claim the making of a lapsing
declaration.
3. Further, a prayer is made for directing the respondents to
not oust the petitioners and their family members from residential house
No. 91 falling in Khasra No. 255 situated within the phirni of village
Mauli Baidwan, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar, Mohali, in view of
rehabilitation/relocation policy dated 18.02.2014 (Annexure P-10).
4. The present petitioners would be entitled to the espoused
writ relief(s), as relates to this Court, thus declaring rather lapsed the
extantly drawn acquisition proceedings, but only when the provisions
embodied in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, become proved to
become breached by the respondents. However, for the reasons to be
assigned hereinafter, the asked for relief qua the making of a lapsing
declaration rather cannot be accorded by this Court.
5. Primarily for the reason, that the present petitioners would
be entitled to coax this Court to declare the launching of the acquisition
proceedings under the 'Act of 1894', to thus become lapsed, but only
when the respondent-State, rather had completely failed to, in terms of
the verdict rendered by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Indore Development Authority versus Manohar Lal and
others, reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, adduce sufficient/clinching
discharging evidence, in respect of the duo parameters, inasmuch as, (i)
qua rapat possession being made over the acquired lands, (ii) and, qua
the compensation, as became determined by the Collector concerned,
becoming deposited for therebys its becoming available for being
released to the land losers concerned, besides the said events evidently
happening before the coming into force of the 'Act of 2013'.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056635-DB
CWP-24897-2018 -3- 2024:PHHC:056635-DB
6. To determine the above, it is necessary to refer to the reply
on affidavit, which has been placed on record by the learned State
counsel. A reading of paragraph No. 5 of the reply reveals, that the
disputed lands are comprised in Khasra No. 255/3, 255/2 and 255/1,
form a part of Jumla Mushtarka Malkan of village Mauli Baidwan.
Further, as per revenue record maintained in the Office of the Land
Acquisition Collector, Urban Development, SAS Nagar, the petitioners
are not recorded as land owners rather the ownership of the subject
lands was in the name of Harbhajan Singh (since deceased), who was
the husband of petitioner No. 1. The said recorded land owner is stated
on reply on affidavit, to receive the compensation amount of
Rs.25,028/- for the acquired jumla mushtarka malkan land vide cheque
No. 650717 dated 05.06.2007. In addition, the said Harbhajan Singh
(since deceased), is also disclosed on reply on affidavit, to receive the
compensation amount comprised in a sum of Rs.7,70,850/- vide cheque
No. 727278 dated 31.08.2007. The said compensation amount
appertains to the structure (house).
7. The facts (supra) when disclose that the predecessor-in-
interest of the present petitioners has received compensation amounts
(supra), thereby the present petitioners become estopped to claim
compensation amount in respect of the subject lands, thus on the
principle that the lawful owner of the subject lands, who is their
predecessor-in-interest, through receiving compensation in respect of
the subject lands, has therebys acquiesced to the valid launchings of the
acquisition proceedings. Resultantly, therebys too, the petitioners are
bound by the said acquiescence of their predecessor-in-interest.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056635-DB
CWP-24897-2018 -4- 2024:PHHC:056635-DB
8. Moreover, a reading of the paragraph no. 6 of the said
reply, on affidavit, reveals, that possession over the acquired lands
became assumed through rapat No. 248 dated 26.12.2006, and,
mutation to this effect was got entered in favour of beneficiary
department i.e. PUDA (GMADA).
9. In consequence, since both the above events took place
prior to the coming into force of the 'Act of 2013', resultantly, in terms
of the verdict recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indore
Development Authority's case (supra), the present petitioners are not
entitled to make any espousal before this Court, that a lapsing
declaration be made in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
10. Furthermore, since the compensation qua the land as well
as the structure has already been disbursed to the recorded land owner
Harbhajan Singh (husband of petitioner no. 1), thereby also the
petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the launched acquisition
proceedings, nor they are eligible for the allotment of a residential plot
against the acquisition of the land of jumla mushtarka malkan nor they
can rest their claim upon the rehabilitation/relocation policy dated
18.02.2014 (Annexure P-10). In sequel, the above made writ claims are
declined.
11. The further reason for rejecting the writ claims becomes
founded upon the factum that the instant petition, rather being hit by a
gross pervasive vice of delay and laches. The reason for making the
above conclusion becomes sparked from the factum, that the challenge
to the afore, has been made after almost twelve years elapsing, since the
launching of acquisition proceedings under the 'Act of 1894'.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056635-DB
CWP-24897-2018 -5- 2024:PHHC:056635-DB
Resultantly, the extant petition being hit by the above vice as such, the
petition deserves becoming rejected.
12. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment rendered in
case titled "M/s Star Wire (India) Ltd. V/s State of Haryana and
others", reported in (1996) 11 SCC 698, has in the relevant paragraph
of its verdict, paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, thus
declared that any belated challenge, as made to the relevant lawful fully
terminated acquisition proceedings, thus is hit by the vices of delay and
laches, and thereby too, the said belated motion as existing in the
instant petition, is but required to be declared as misconstituted.
"Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contends that the
petitioner had no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings; as soon as it came to
know of the acquisition, it had challenged the validity of the acquisition
proceedings and, therefore, it furnishes cause of action to the petitioner. He further
contends that the writ petition could not be dismissed on the ground of laches but
was required to be considered on merits. We find no force in the contention. Any
encumbrance created by the erstwhile owner of the land after publication of the
notification under Section 4(1) does not bind the State if the possession of land is
already taken over after the award came to be passed. The land stood vested in the
State free from all encumbrances under Section 16. In Gurmukh Singh & Ors. vs.
The State of Haryana [J] 1995 (8) SC 208], this Court had held that a subsequent
purchaser is not entitled to challenge the legality of the acquisition proceedings on
the ground of lack of publication of the notification. In Y.N. Garg vs State of
Rajasthan [1996 (1) SCC 284] and Sneh Prabha vs. State of U.P. [1996 (7) 325],
this Court had held the alienation made by the erstwhile owner of the land after
publication of the notification under Section 4(1), do not bind either the State
Government or the beneficiary for whose benefit the land was acquired. The
purchaser does not acquire any valid title. Even the colour of title claimed by the
purchaser was void. The beneficiary is entitled to have absolute possession free
from encumbrances. In U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman & Anr. vs.
M/s Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow & Ors. {(1996) 1 SCC 124], this Court
had further held that the purchaser of the property, after the notification under
Section 4(1) was published, is devoid of right to challenge the validity of the
notification or irregularity in taking possession of the land before publication of
the declaration under Section 6. As regards laches in approaching the Court, this
Court has been consistently taking the view starting from State of Madhya Pradesh
& Anr. vs. Bhailal Bhai & Ors. [AIR 1964 SC 1006] wherein a Constitution Bench
had held that it is not either desirable or expedient to lay down a rule of universal
application but the unreasonable delay denies to the petitioner, the discretionary
extraordinary remedy of mandamus, certiorari or any other relief. The same was
view reiterated in catena of decisions, viz., Rabindranath Bose & Ors. vs. The
Union of India & Ors. [(1970 (1) SCC 84]; State of Mysore & Ors. vs. Narsimha
Ram Naik [AIR 1975 SC 2190]; Aflatoon & Anr. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi [ (1975)
4 SCC 285]; M/s. Tilokchand Motichand & Ors. vs. H.B. Munshi, Commissioner of
Sales Tax, Bombay & Anr. [AIR 1970 SC 898]; State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. etc. V.
L. Krishnan & Ors. etc. [JT 1995 (8) SC 1]; Improvement Trust, Faridkot & Ors.
vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. [1987 Supp. SCC 608]; State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Hari
Om Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Amritsar [1987 Supp. SCC 687];
Market Committee, Hodal vs. Krishan Murari & Ors. [JT 1995 (8) SC 494] and
State of Haryana vs. Dewan Singh [(1996 (7) SCC 394] wherein this Court had
held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the acquisition
proceedings. This Court in the latest judgement in Municipal Corporation of Great
Bombay vs. The Industrial Development & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [JT
1996 (8) SC 16], reviewed the entire case law and held that the person who
approaches the Court belatedly will be told that laches close the gates of the Court
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056635-DB
CWP-24897-2018 -6- 2024:PHHC:056635-DB
for him to question the legality of the notification under Section 4(1), declaration
under Section 6 and the award of the Collector under Section 11. "
Final Order of this Court.
13. In aftermath, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition,
and, with the above observations, the same is dismissed. The impugned
notification(s), and consequent thereto award are maintained and
affirmed.
14. No order as to costs.
15. Since the main case itself has been decided, thus, all the
pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
24.04.2024 JUDGE
kavneet singh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
