This is an application under Section 151 CPC on behalf of the
applicants/petitioners to place on record reply to the affidavit dated
After going through the contents of the application, which is
supported by affidavit of applicant/petitioner No.1, the same is allowed
subject to all just exceptions and reply to the affidavit filed by the respondent
This is an application under Section 151 CPC for exemption from
personal appearance of Krishan Kumar, Principal Secretary to Government of
Punjab, Department of Water Resources in support of application under
Section 151 CPC for exemption from personal appearance before this Court
After going through the contents of the application, the same is
Present Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioners
alleging violation of the order dated 08.08.2014 passed by a Division Bench of
this Court in CWP-10555-2014 titled as "Daljit Singh & Others Vs. State of
CM stands disposed of.
The land of the petitioners was acquired by the State of Punjab.
Although compensation was determined but it is the case of the
petitioners that neither the compensation has been deposited
before the competent court nor the actual physical possession has
been taken and, thus, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in
view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013.
Notice of motion.
On our asking, Ms. Manisha Gandhi, Additional Advocate General,
Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the State. Let three copies of
the writ petition be supplied to learned State counsel during the
course of the day.
Keeping in view the above contentions raised by the counsel for
the petitioners, we direct the State of Punjab to find out as to
whether the compensation has been deposited in competent court
and/or the actual physical possession has been taken or not.
Post on 05.09.2014.
In the meantime, there shall be status quo as it exists today."
2. On the last date of hearing i.e. 27.03.2026, following order was
passed:-
"Prayer in the present application (CM-16209-CII-2025) is for
placing on record additional affidavit of the applicant-petitioner
No.1- Daljit Singh alongwith true translated copy of Roznamcha
as Annexure P- 3) and exemption from filing the certified/typed
copy thereof.
Notice in the application.
Learned counsel for the State accepts notice of the application.
Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record the
affidavit dated 17.03.2026 of Ms. Aashika Jain, Deputy
Commissioner, Hoshiarpur (respondent No.3), which is taken on
record. A copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for
the applicants-petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the document
dated 28.03.1989 (Annexure R-1) is a Rapat Roznamcha.
Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks time to file a
reply to the said affidavit and submits that the document in
question is not a Rapat Roznamcha, but pertains to a Munadi
allegedly conducted by the respondents under Section 4 read with
Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, indicating the proposed
acquisition of the land of the petitioners. It is further submitted
that the said document has already been placed on record by the
petitioners as Annexure P-3, annexed with the present application.
This Court has considered the rival submissions and deems it
appropriate to grant an opportunity to the petitioners to file a
response to the affidavit dated 17.3.2026 so as to clarify the
nature and evidentiary value of the document in question.
It is also pertinent to note that vide order dated 11.02.2026, the
respondents were specifically directed to remain present in Court
to explain the position in the matter. However, despite the
aforesaid clear direction, none has chosen to appear on behalf of
the respondents today. The said conduct reflects a lack of
seriousness and due regard to the orders passed by this Court and
cannot be appreciated. Such non- compliance of the directions
issued by this Court, without any justifiable cause, is viewed
seriously.
In view of the above, the matter is adjourned to 18.04.2026 for
filing of reply by the petitioners to the affidavit dated 17.03.2026.
The presence of the concerned respondents shall now be secured
before this Court through the local SHO on the next date of
hearing. It is made clear that in case of continued non-compliance,
this Court shall be constrained to take appropriate action in
accordance with law."
3. In compliance of the aforesaid last order, the remaining
respondents are present before this Court.
4. It is the contention of the petitioners that in violation of the
abovesaid order dated 08.08.2014, compensation has not been paid to the
petitioners till date. Further, even the status quo order has also been violated
as respondents are disturbing the possession of the petitioners over the
property in question. It is pointed out that vide order dated 07.01.2016, the
above-said CWP-10555-2014 had been adjourned sine die as follows: -
"Present: Mr. Manish Dadwal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional A.G. Punjab.
******
The hearing of the present petition is adjourned sine
die with a direction to post the writ petition for hearing after the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4835 of 2015
titled State of Haryana and another v. Maharana Partap
Charitable Trust.
The liberty is given to the parties to apply for hearing of the
petition after decision of the aforesaid Civil Appeal as well.
The parties shall maintain status quo regarding possession till
further orders.
(.......)
JUDGE
(.......)
JUDGE"
5. Again on 16.11.2019, following order was passed:-
"Present : Ms. Neha Jain, Advocate for
Mr. K. S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sahil Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
***
SLP is pending before Hon'ble the Supreme Court.
Adjourned sine die.
To be listed on moving application after decision of
the SLP."
6. It is submitted that therefore, it is clear that status quo order
regarding possession was continuing till date and had not been modified or
vacated by this Court. Yet the respondents No.4 to 8 in clear contravention of
the aforesaid orders had come to the spot on 20.12.2022 and endangered the
life of the family members of the petitioners by saying that they are going to
start the construction work on 21.12.2022 and if any person attempts to stall
the construction, they will be behind bars, despite the fact that the said
respondents were well aware of the status quo order. Accordingly, the
petitioners had immediately moved an application No.852 dated 20.12.2022
before the SHO, Police Station Garhdiwala, District Hoshiarpur. However, no
action was taken on the application. The petitioners had even served a legal
notice dated 21.12.2022 (Annexure P2) upon the respondents calling upon
them to forthwith stop the illegal work and comply with order dated
08.08.2014. However, the respondents have failed to comply. Accordingly,
present Contempt Petition was filed on 03.01.2023.
7. The aforesaid contentions of the petitioners are vehemently
controverted by learned counsel for the respondents who refers to the reply
dated 29.03.2023 filed by way of affidavit of Ms. Komal Mittal, IAS, Land
Acquisition Collector, Dholbaha Dam Construction Circle, Hoshiarpur. It is
submitted that as stated in the above-said affidavit, land of the petitioners was
acquired in the year 1989. Notice under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 04.08.1986
(Annexure R/T-1) was received by the petitioner No.3 for submitting objections.
No Objections were received by the Land Acquisition Officer from the
petitioners. Subsequently, Notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act;
followed by a declaration dated 30.03.1989 issued under Section 6 of the Act;
whereafter Awards dated 23.09.1991 were announced. In this regard, learned
State counsel also refers to the submissions made in Paras 3 to 5 of the said
affidavit dated 29.3.2023, which read as follows:-
"3. That the said land was acquired during the year 1989 and
award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector vide
Award No. 112-A, 112-B, 112-C and 112-D on 23-03-1991. Notice
under Section-9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act I, 1894 was
served on dated: (04.08.1986) (Annexure R/T-1) and was received
by the petitioner no. 3 for attending the office of Land Acquisition
Officer, Dholbaha Dam Construction Circle, Hoshiarpur on dated:
21.08.1986 for submitting any objections regarding their claims
to compensation or any measurement made under the Section-8
of the Act. However, in reply to that Notice no objections were
received by the Land Acquisition Officer from the petitioners at
that time. The total compensation amount of for Total Land
Measuring 17-00 Kanal at the rate of Rs. 45.14/- (For Baraani
Land) was given to Dhyaan Singh, Sandhya Dass (Father of
Petitioners), Charan Singh, Kartar Singh, Lekh Raj (All Sons of
Jagan Nath), Out of which share of Sandhya Dass (Father of
Petitioners) was Rs. 5022.28/- was duly deposited with Land
Acquisition Officer, Hoshiarpur by the Date of Posession by
Department on dated: 22.03.1991 but neither the petitioner nor
their predecessor approached the Land Acquisition Officer to
collect the compensation amount and is already informed to the
Hon'ble Court in the previous reply of the Civil Writ Petition. This
amount can be released to the petitioner. Since then the
possession of land is with Govt. of Punjab. After the possession of
land Kandi Canal was constructed at that site between R.D. +
34092 to R.D. +34358 Mtr. during the year 1993- 1994. It is also
pertinent to mention here that the petitioners are also using the
canal water and paying user charges (Abiana) to the Govt. It is
brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that status quo
regarding possession has not been changed because the land was
in the possession of Govt. of Punjab before the orders of Hon'ble
Court and land is still in the possession of Govt. of Punjab after the
orders of Hon'ble Court. The land is in the possession of Govt. since
1991.
4. That as per award dated 22.03.1991 no super structure exists
on the said land. Therefore, no question of making assessment for
compensation for the same. As per revenue record of Jamabandi
for the year 1985-86 the said land is shown as Barani. Copy of the
translated Jamabandi is attached as (Annexure R.2 of the reply of
C.W.P. 10555 of 2014). That there was no Abadi at the time of
acquisition in Khasra No. 973. Khasra No's 970, 971, 972, 973, 974,
1015 falls under the constructed canal as shown in Shajra Map
(Annexure R-3 of the reply of C.W.P. 10555 of 2014).
5. That father of the petitioners namely Shri Sandhya Dass filed
C.W.P. No. 4754 of 1993 seeking the quashing of Notification in
view of the provisions of Section 11 and Section 11-A of the Act
1894. C.W.P. No. 4754 of 1993 was clubbed with similar CWP's and
decision was announced by Justice M.M. Kumar and Justice
Gurdev Singh on September 13, 2011. The operative part of the
judgment in C.W.P. 16745 of 1991 is reproduced as under:-
"12. For the aforementioned reasons, these petitions fail and the
same are dismissed. If the award with regard to super structure
has not been announced then the same shall now be done within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order".
It is brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that as per award
dated 22.03.1991, no superstructure exist on the said land.
Therefore, no question of making assessment for compensation
for the same."
8. It is submitted that therefore, the respondents had duly
deposited the compensation before the Land Acquisition Collector, and it is for
the petitioners to file appropriate application(s) to withdraw the said
compensation, or not, as they choose fit.
9. It is further submitted that possession of the said land had been
duly taken by the respondents vide Rapat No.2695 (Annexure R1), which reads
as follows:-
"28 March 1989 as per 7 Chetar Saka 1911
Today order of the DC received vide letter No. LAE 357-DR AH 750-
51 dated 15-03-89 OK No. 399 accordingly Mustri Munadi
conducted in the Vill. Bhanowal, through the chowkidar Ram
Kishan in loud voice by beating drum vide Notification No. 501-
4/3-Inv/89 dated 23-03-1989 that Khasra No. 76... ... ... total
area 22-96 acquire for Kandi Canal R.D. 32395 R.D. 42762 as per
section 4 Land Acquisition Act 1894 and section 17(1) Rapat
entered at 2695 in daily general dairy (Rojnamcha Waquati)
Sd/- Ram Kishan"
10. It is submitted that therefore, possession of the suit land had
been duly taken by the respondents as far back as in the year 1989-91. Thus,
contention of the petitioners that they are in possession of the said land is
totally incorrect. Therefore too, there is no violation of the status quo direction
given by this Court vide order dated 8.8.2014; as it was the respondents
themselves who were in possession of the land in question.
11. It is further submitted that as noted above, the Writ Petition had
been adjourned sine die vide order dated 07.01.2016 to await decision in the
Civil Appeal No.4835-2015. Learned counsel points out that the said SLP stands
decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 06.03.2020.
However, no application has been moved by the petitioners till date for revival
of the Writ Petition. It is contended that in view of the fact that the status quo
was subsisting only till the pendency of the Writ Petition; which had been
adjourned sine die to await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
SLP; which admittedly stands decided vide judgment dated 06.03.2020, it
cannot be stated that the status quo order is still subsisting.
12. Learned State counsel further submits that the present Contempt
Petition is based merely on the allegation that in December 2022, the
respondents No.4 to 9 had come to the spot, threatened family members of
the petitioners and had started work at site with the crane. Learned counsel
contends that in view of the above-noted facts that SLP already stood decided
vide judgment dated 06.03.2020, the status quo order cannot be stated to be
in operation and therefore, even if respondents were carrying on any work,
the same cannot be stated to be in violation of the order dated 08.08.2014.
Nonetheless, it is clarified that only repair work of concrete lining on the canal
which had already been constructed in the year 1993-94 was being carried out
by the respondents in 2022.
13. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that
in actual fact, the land of the petitioners had been acquired by the respondents
under Section 17 of the Act, whereunder special powers in cases of urgency
are conferred upon the State. However, the petitioners have deliberately
sought to mislead this Court. It is pointed out that vide CM-16209-CII-2025,
the petitioners have placed on record Annexure P3 dated 03.12.1992 wherein
at page 11 of the said application, the petitioners have mentioned that "total
land measuring 22.96 are hereby acquired under section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1895 for Kandi Canal RP395RD 42762. Report OF Daily diary
has been registered at 2697.". Learned counsel refers to the vernacular of the
said Annexure P3 (at page 13 of the said application) to submit that it is clearly
mentioned in the Rapat Roznamcha dated 03.12.1992 that the acquisition is
under Section 17(1) of the Act. It is accordingly prayed that fraud has been
committed by the petitioners upon this Court and the Contempt Petition is not
maintainable for the reasons mentioned hereinabove and the same may be
dismissed with costs.
14. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that he may
be permitted to withdraw the present Contempt Petition.
15. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have heard
learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail.
16. The ld. Counsel for the petitioners has abjectly failed to dispute
or controvert the above said submissions of the learned State Counsel. No
rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners to the reply/affidavit dated
29.03.2023 filed on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector,
Hoshiarpur/respondent No.3. Consequentially, the facts stated therein have
not been disputed or denied by the petitioners.
17. In para 3 of the abovesaid reply dated 29.3.2023, the State has
taken a clear and categorical stand that the land had been acquired in the year
1989; whereafter Awards bearing No. 112-A, 112-B, 112-C and 112-D were
announced on 23.03.1991; and that notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had earlier been served on 04.08.1986. The State
further pleaded that the share of the petitioners' predecessor Sandhya Dass
amounting to Rs. 5,022.28 had been duly deposited with the Land Acquisition
Officer by the date of possession, namely 22.03.1991. It was also pleaded that
neither the petitioners nor their predecessor approached the Land Acquisition
Officer to collect the compensation.
18. The same para 3 of the reply dated 29.03.2023 further states that
possession of the land has remained with the Government of Punjab since
1991; and, after possession, the Kandi Canal was constructed at site in 1993-
94. The State has also pleaded that the petitioners themselves are using canal
water and are paying user charges/abiana to the Government. On that basis,
the specific stand of the respondent State is that status quo regarding
possession had not changed, because the land was already in Government
possession before the orders of this Court and remained in Government
possession thereafter as well.
19. In para 4 of the same reply dated 29.3.2023, the State has pleaded
that as per the Award dated 22.03.1991, no superstructure existed on the land
in question and therefore there was no question of any separate compensation
for the same. The State also referred to the revenue record/Jamabandi for the
year 1985-86 and pleaded that the land was shown as Barani and that there
was no abadi at the time of acquisition in Khasra No. 973.
20. In para 5 of the same reply, the State has referred to the earlier
CWP No. 4754 of 1993 filed by Sandhya Dass, predecessor in interest of the
present petitioners; and the decision dated 13.09.2011 in the said CWP No.
4754 of 1993, whereby the only liberty given to the petitioners was that if the
Award with regard to superstructure had not been announced, then the same
should be done. The State again repeated its stand that as per Award dated
22.03.1991, no superstructure existed and therefore no further assessment
was required.
21. A perusal of the above undisputed facts submitted by learned
counsel for the respondent-State shows that no wilful disobedience of the
order dated 08.08.2014 has been committed by the respondents.
22. Thus, this Court is very much inclined to impose heavy costs on
the petitioners; however, in view of the earnest request of the learned counsel
for the petitioners, present Contempt Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
23. Rule stands discharged.
24. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
(Nidhi Gupta)
18.04.2026 Judge
Sunena
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
