Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nirmal Singh And Others vs Punjab Government And Others on 12 January, 2009
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
C.R. No. 7017 of 2008 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: January 12, 2009
(1) C. R. No. 7017 of 2008 (O&M)
Nirmal Singh and others
.. Petitioners
v.
Punjab Government and others
.. Respondents
(2) C. R. No. 7047 of 2008 (O&M)
Kartar Singh
.. Petitioner
v.
Punjab Government and others
.. Respondents
(3) C. R. No. 7168 of 2008 (O&M)
Nirmal Singh and others
.. Petitioners
v.
Punjab Government and others
.. Respondents
(4) C. R. No. 7169 of 2008 (O&M)
Gurbachan Kaur
.. Petitioner
v.
Punjab Government and others
.. Respondents
(5) C. R. No. 7170 of 2008 (O&M)
Teja Singh
.. Petitioner
v.
Punjab Government and others
.. Respondents
C.R. No. 7017 of 2008 [2]
(6) C. R. No. 7185 of 2008 (O&M)
Teja Singh and others
.. Petitioners
v.
Punjab Government and others
.. Respondents
(7) C. R. No. 7186 of 2008 (O&M)
Kartar Singh
.. Petitioner
v.
Punjab Government and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. M. L. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. BBS Teji, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State.
Mr. A. R. Takkar, Advocate for PSIEC.
..
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order will dispose of above mentioned seven revision petitions, as common questions of law and facts are involved. However, the facts have been noticed from Civil Revision No. 7017 of 2008.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for amendment of the reference petition on account of acquisition of land was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he restricts his amendment only to one fact, namely, that the petitioners are entitled to interest from the date actual physical possession of the land was taken as against "formal possession", as was mentioned in the petition filed. The submission is that it is on account of the fact that possession of the land was taken much prior to the issuance of formal notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'). For any period prior thereto, the petitioners are certainly entitled to claim interest. He further submitted that even before the learned court below, no objection was raised by respondent No.3, namely, PSIEC, for the benefit of which the land was acquired. He submitted that the purpose is only that just and fair compensation is assessed for acquired land. The petitioners had been C.R. No. 7017 of 2008 [3] deprived of their property much prior to its formal acquisition and they need to be compensated for the same.
The fact that respondent No.3-PSIEC had suffered a statement before the court below having no objection to the amendment of the petition, as noticed in the interim order passed by the court below on 31.10.2008, is not disputed.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the application is highly belated. The petitioners have already been paid the entire amount of compensation along with interest from 6.8.1990 and as such, no claim with regard to interest remains pending. The object is only to delay the disposal of the reference before the court below, as issues had already been framed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. The procedural law is subservient to the cause of justice. It should not come in a way if pitted against substantial justice. In the present case, the petitioners have been deprived of their land for which they have to be adequately compensated in terms of law. All what the petitioners are seeking is to amend in the reference petition is that they are entitled to interest from the date possession of the land was taken from them. Even in the stand of the respondents, it is mentioned that the petitioners have been paid the compensation, as assessed by the respondents, along with interest from 6.8.1990. In such circumstances, even if the issues had been framed, in my opinion, it is not a case where the amendment sought by the petitioners should have been declined by the learned court below, as it is the duty of the court to assess just and fair compensation in the cases of acquisition of land on the basis of material placed on record.
Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned court below declining the amendment of the reference petition is set aside and the petitioners are permitted to amend the reference petition to the extent that they are entitled to payment of interest from the date actual physical possession of the land was taken from them as against the date of formal possession.
The revision petitions are disposed of in the manner indicated above.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 12.1.2009 mk