Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Municipal Committee, Sahdaura, ... vs Khem Chand on 14 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037003
1
RSA No.2079 of 1992 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:037003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
143
RSA No.2079 of 1992 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 14.03.2024
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SAHDAURA, AMBALA & ANR
......Appellants
Vs
KHEM CHAND ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate with
Mr. Lovejeet Poonia, Advocate and
for the appellants along with
Mr. Kahil, J.E. M.C. Sahdaura.
Mr. Gursimran Singh Madaan, Advocate and
Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent.
******
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)
[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and
decree dated 07.04.1992 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at
Jagadhri whereby the judgment and decree dated 21.04.1989 passed by the Sub-
Judge IInd Class, Jagadhri was reversed in favour of respondent-plaintiff by
decreeing his suit for possession.
[2]. Briefly stating, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession
regarding the property in question, claiming himself to be owner of the same
having been inherited from his father Karam Chand. It was averred in the plaint
that the appellants/defendants in anticipation of acquisition proceedings took
possession of the suit property from the respondent/plaintiff for converting it as a
municipal park, however, the steps taken towards acquisition were neither
completed by passing of any award, nor the possession of the suit property was
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037003
RSA No.2079 of 1992 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:037003
ever returned to the respondent/plaintiff thereby compelling him to file the suit for
possession.
[3]. In the detailed written statement filed on behalf of the
appellants/defendants, it was claimed that possession of the land in question was
handed over to the appellants/defendants in terms of Notification dated 06.10.1981
and 10.01.1984 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter to be referred as 'the 1894 Act') respectively and post delivery of
possession, the appellants/defendants constructed a public park thereupon. It was
also pleaded that the aforesaid notifications were followed by an award regarding
the acquisition and, thus, the suit land vested with the appellant/defendants.
[4]. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.04.1989 dismissed
the suit filed at the instance of respondent/plaintiff while holding that even as per
the admission made by the respondent/plaintiff though an award was passed by the
appellants/defendants, however, neither he was informed about the same nor, he
was ever paid the amount of compensation, thus having admitted the factum of
passing of award, the respondent/plaintiff had the remedy to file a suit for recovery
of compensation amount along with interest rather than claiming possession of the
land in question.
[5]. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent/plaintiff filed first appeal, which
came to be allowed vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.1992 passed by the
Addl. District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri while holding that no evidence in
the form of any copy of award passed regarding the land in question was ever
produced by the appellants/defendants, thereby belying their stand of having
acquired the suit property and the same having been vested in them in terms of
Section 16 of the 1894 Act.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037003
RSA No.2079 of 1992 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:037003
[6]. At the time of hearing of the present appeal on 16.02.2024, learned
counsel for the appellants/defendants sought time to verify and trace the award, if
any passed by the Land Acquisition Collector as regards the acquisition of land in
question. The said order is reproduced hereunder:-
"In this appeal, the crucial issue is with respect to the existence of
award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector in terms of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, after the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the
Act were issued on 06.10.1981 and 11.01.1984. The respondent, in his
evidence, has admitted that there was an award passed by the Land
Acquisition Collector. However, the First Appellate Court held that no
award has been placed on file.
The learned counsel representing the appellant prays for some time
to verify and trace the award, if any, passed by the Land Acquisition
Collector.
List on 04.03.2024, in the urgent list."
[7]. Thereafter, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants sought two
more opportunities to do the needful. However, today learned counsel has appeared
along with Sh. Kahil, J.E. M.C. Sahdaura, Ambala and informs the Court that no
such record pertaining to any award being passed in pursuance to Notifications
dated 06.10.1981 and 11.01.1984 regarding the acquisition of land in question was
traceable. No other point has been argued before this Court. The said fact itself
compels this Court to draw an irresistible adverse inference against appellants-
defendants that no award pertaining to the acquisition of land in question was ever
passed by the Land Acquisition Collector at their instance and thereby, the land in
question never vested in them in terms of Section 16 of the 1894 Act.
8. As per Section 300-A of the Constitution of India, no person can be
deprived of his property save by authority of law. The Section 16 of 1894 Act and
Section 300-A of the Constitution of India are reproduced hereunder:-
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037003
RSA No.2079 of 1992 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:037003
Section 16 of 1894 Act
"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."
300-A of the Constitution of India
300-A. Persons not be to deprived of property save by authority
of law. No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority
of law."
[9]. In the present case, after issuance of notifications under Sections 4
and 6 of the 1894 Act, the acquisition proceedings were thus never concluded
followed by passing of an award in terms of Section 11 of the 1894 Act and, thus,
the suit land vested with the appellants/defendants, who thus had no right to retain
the possession of the property in question which was undisputedly owned by the
respondent/plaintiff and as such the suit for possession filed by the respondent-
plaintiff being its owner was rightly decreed.
[10]. Resultantly, in view of discussion made hereinabove, there being no
illegality or perversity with the findings recorded by the First Appellant Court, the
present appeal is hereby dismissed as no question of law much less substantial
question of law is involved in this appeal.
[11]. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
March 14, 2024 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037003
4 of 4
