Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ujagar Singh vs State Of Punjab Etc on 24 September, 2024
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126734-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. CWP-5185-2014 Date of Decision: 24.09.2024
Ujagar Singh --Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & others --Respondents
2. CWP-14118-2014
Surjit Kumar @ Surjit Singh & others --Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & others --Respondents
3. CWP-14139-2014
Jarnail Singh --Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & others --Respondents
4. CWP-14141-2014
Babu Ram & others --Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & others --Respondents
5. CWP-14912-2014
Shamsher Singh --Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & others --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA.
Present:- Mr. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Shekhar Verma, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. R.S. Khosla, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Ishrat Phulka, Advocate for PUDA.
***
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126734-DB
CWP-5185-2014 & connected petitions -2-
G.S. SANDHAWALIA.J (Oral)
1. This order shall dispose of the aforementioned five writ
petitions as common issue is involved therein.
2. Prayer made in these petitions is for quashing the notification
dated 21.02.2000 (Annexure P-4) issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act), the consequent notification dated
02.02.2001 (Annexure P-5) issued under Section 6 of the Act as also the
Award dated 17.05.2001 (Annexure P-5) pertaining to land comprised in
Khasra No.107//19 (8-0) in village Sohana, Tehsil & District Mohali.
3. It is admitted case of the petitioners that they have also
received some compensation and have also filed one reference under
Section 18 of the Act which was also decided vide award dated 13.08.2009.
One RFA No.5575-2010 against the award dated 13.08.2009 was dismissed
vide order dated 11.05.2011. The petition(s) have been filed on the strength
of lapsing proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (for short '2013 Act') after considerable delay of 13 years are not
liable to be entertained, since the petitioners have agitated for their rights
for enhanced compensation before the Reference Court. Thus, reliance can
be placed upon the observations made in Indore Development Authority
Vs. Manoharlal & others, AIR 2020 SC 1496 regarding the consequences
of pursuing the remedy for higher compensation in Court. Relevant portion
of the said judgment reads as under:-
"224. Thus, in our opinion, the word "paid" used in
Section 24(2) does not include within its meaning the word
"deposited", which has been used in the proviso to Section 24(2).
Section 31 of the Act of 1894, deals with the deposit as envisaged in
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126734-DB
CWP-5185-2014 & connected petitions -3-
Section 31(2) on being 'prevented' from making the payment even if
the amount has been deposited in the treasury under the Rules
framed under Section 55 or under the Standing Orders, that would
carry the interest as envisaged under Section 34, but acquisition
would not lapse on such deposit being made in the treasury. In case
amount has been tendered and the landowner has refused to receive
it, it cannot be said that the liability arising from non-payment of the
amount is that of lapse of acquisition. Interest would follow in such a
case also due to non-deposit of the amount. Equally, when the
landowner does not accept the amount, but seeks a reference for
higher compensation, there can be no question of such individual
stating that he was not paid the amount (he was determined to be
entitled to by the collector). In such case, the landowner would be
entitled to the compensation determined by the Reference Court."
Thus, keeping in view the above, challenge as such cannot be
raised to the acquisition proceedings by the landowners, at a belated stage,
who have availed their remedy before the Reference Court. Resultantly,
there is no merit in these writ petitions and same are hereby dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
24.09.2024 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
lucky JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
