Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shiv Kumar Vashisht vs Union Territory Chandigarh And Another on 25 September, 2024
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127259-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(222) CWP No.26494 of 2019
Decided on : 25.09.2024
Shiv Kumar Vashisht ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
U.T. Chandigarh and another ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present: Mr. Sumit Kalyan, Advocate for
Mr. G.S. Mada an, Advocate for the petitioner (s).
Mr. J.S. Chandail, APP U.T. Chandigarh with
Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent- U.T. Chandigarh.
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.(Oral)
1. Challenge in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India is to the acquisition proceedings which were
initiated on 10.08.1990 (Annexure P-1) under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short '1894 Act') and the resultant declaration
made under Section 6 of the said Act dated 08.08.1991 (Annexure P-2). The
Award was passed on 26.02.1993 (Annexure P-3), which is also the subject
matter of challenge. Challenge has also been raised to the lapsing dispute
under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short '2013 Act'), after a
period of 29 years.
2. The land in the present case was acquired of village Mani Majra,
Chandigarh, for the purpose of Residential-cum-Commercial Complex. The
pleadings are that the petitioner had purchased 3 marlas of land in Piple Wala
Town, Manimajra from one Ajit Singh son of Jagir Singh, vide sale deed
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127259-DB
CWP-26494-2019
20.08.1989 (Annexure P-4) and the mutation has been appended as
Annexure P-5. It has further been pleaded that he had not been served any
notice at the time of announcing of Award and, therefore, neither any payment
has been made to the petitioner till date.
3. In the short reply filed, it has been specifically mentioned that
compensation was received by the original owner Jagir Singh son of Sampuran
Singh and possession has been taken over on 06.04.1994 and handed over to
the Notified Area Committee/Municipal Corporation, U.T. Chandigarh. In
such circumstances, respondents have relied upon the judgment of the
Constitutional Bench passed in Indore Development Authority Vs.
Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129. Report of possession has also
been appended as Annexure A-1, regarding the Award No.475 dated
26.02.1993 qua the land in question. Apparently, the petitioner never got the
mutation before the Section 4 notification, which would be clear from the
vernacular copy of Annexure P-5. A perusal of Annexure P-5 goes on to show
that on the basis of the sale deed in question, the mutation was only changed
on 21.02.1992, whereas the Section 4 notification was dated 10.08.1990.
4. Thus, in such circumstances, the original landowner got the
compensation, as has been averred by the respondents. The same had been
done on the basis of the revenue record and now the petitioner cannot turn
around and say that neither compensation has been awarded nor the possession
has been taken, since it has been categorically averred in the reply that Rapat
Roznamcha has already been entered.
5. Accordingly, in the absence of any twin violation having been
pointed out, as per the judgment of the Constitutional Bench passed in Indore
Development Authority (supra), we do not find any reason that the
acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed or any further directions are
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127259-DB
CWP-26494-2019
required to be issued. If the petitioner has any grouse, it is against the vendor,
who had received the compensation. Resultantly, there is no merit in the
present writ petition and same is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
25.09.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
