Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukhtiar Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 11 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035028
RSA-2543-1993 (O&M) 1 2024:PHHC:035028
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2543-1993 (O&M)
Date of decision: 11.03.2024
Mukhtiar Singh and others
....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and another
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:- Mr. R.K.Handa, Advocate for the appellants
Mr. Manoj Taya, Advocate for appellant no.10 and 11
Mr.J.S.Pannu, AAG, Haryana
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
1. This is the plaintiffs' Regular Second Appeal against the
judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. The trial court
granted limited injunction in favour of the plaintiffs to the effect that
they will not be dispossessed except in due course of law. However, the
First Appellate Court has reversed the aforesaid limited decree.
2. Sh. Manoj Taya, Advocate has submitted that appellant no.2
has transferred his rights in favour of Smt.Shakuntla Devi and Sh.Amrik
Singh and he has filed an application for their impleadment.
3. Both the learned counsel representing the appellants have
been heard.
4. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present
case, some relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035028
RSA-2543-1993 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:035028
5. Admittedly, the suit land was proposed to be acquired by
the State Government in exercise of powers of eminent domain under
the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as
'1894 Act'). Notifications under Section 4 and 6 were issued on
06.09.1971 and 21.09.1971, respectively. The award under Section 11 of
the 1894 Act was passed on 30.06.1972. The payment as per the award
was deposited and withdrawn by the landowners. The land was acquired
by the State Government for the purpose of establishing a brick kiln.
The appellants (plaintiffs before the trial court) are the landowners, who
have already received the compensation from the Government for
acquisition of their land. However, they filed a suit for the grant of
decree of permanent injunction claiming that they continue to be in
possession of the property and have perfected their title by way of
adverse possession. As already noticed, the trial court only granted
limited relief.
6. Learned counsel representing the appellants submits that the
land was acquired for establishing a brick kiln, which has lost its
significance. He submits that the appellants are in possession of the
property and their possession should be protected from forcible
dispossession.
7. This Court has considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel representing the parties.
8. As per Section 11 of the 1894 Act on passing of the award
by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land absolutely vests in the State
and the landowners are left with no right, title or interest in the property
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035028
RSA-2543-1993 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:035028
except compensation. Section 12 of the 1894 Act provides that such
award shall be final once it is filed in the Land Acquisition Collector's
office. Section 16 of the 1894 Act enables the Land Acquisition
Collector to take possession of the land once it has been acquired.
Section 16 is extracted as under:-
"16. Power to take possession.--When the Collector
has made an award under Section 11, he may take
possession of the land, which shall thereupon [vest
absolutely in the [Government]], free from all
encumbrances."
9. In this case, there is no dispute that the land has in fact been
validly acquired and the landowners have already received the
compensation. Hence, the Land Acquisition Collector has the right to
take over possession of the land which vests absolutely in the
Government free from all encumbrances.
10. The appellants are at the most claiming to be unauthorized
occupants. They are in fact encroachers upon the Government land. It
has come on record that from the crop Haadi 1972 to Haadi 1979. The
entire acquired land was reflected as Gair Mumkin brick kiln.
Thereafter, some part of the land was made cultivable. However, the
plaintiffs, being encroachers of the public land, cannot claim protection
of law.
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere
is made out.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035028
RSA-2543-1993 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:035028
12. Hence, dismissed.
13. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
11.03.2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035028
4 of 4
