Punjab-Haryana High Court
Atam Parkash And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 October, 2012
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No. 11691 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 8.10.2012
CWP No. 11691 of 2012
Atam Parkash and another ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Chirag Wadhwa, Advocate for the petitioners.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
C.M. No.14429 of 2012 Application is allowed. The petitioners are permitted to produce on record Annexures P-5 and P-6 notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
CWP No.11691 of 2012 The petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to give vacant possession of land measuring 2 Kanals 6 Marlas comprised in Khewat No.324 Rect. No.71, Khasra No.20/2 (0-2) and Khasra No.174/1/3(2-4) situated in village Taraori, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal.
The assertion of the petitioners is that the said land is owned by the petitioners but the Government of Haryana constructed a drain for which land was acquired vide notification dated 15.2.1957 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") followed by declaration dated 3.2.1961 under Section 6 of the Act. The stand of the petitioners is that the petitioners have been illegally dispossessed and such fact came to CWP No. 11691 of 2012 2 their knowledge when they wanted to enter into an agreement to sell. It is also asserted that the petitioners have got demarcation from the Revenue Department and as per the said department, the land of the petitioners has been utilized for construction of drain.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that land of the petitioners comprised in aforesaid khasra numbers was never acquired whereas the same has been utilized by the State for construction of drain way back in the year 1961. Since the petitioners have been deprived of their land without due process of law, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to hand over possession of the land in their possession on the basis of the notifications aforementioned. In support, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgments of Division Bench of this Court rendered in Paramjit Singh @ Mange Ram v. State of Haryana and others 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 238 and Anant Ram and others v. State of Haryana and another 2011 (1) RCR (Civil) 307.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and find no merit in the present petition.
The grievance of the petitioners is that respondents have taken illegal possession of the land measuring 2 kanals 6 marlas. It appears that the respondents are in possession consequent to the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act, since the year 1961. There is no averment in the writ petition that pursuant to the aforesaid notifications, the Land Acquisition Collector has not announced the Award and that the land of the petitioners does not find mention in the said Award.
We find that the question whether the land is subject matter of CWP No. 11691 of 2012 3 acquisition consequent to the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act is a disputed question of fact. Such question cannot be decided in a writ petition and that too filed more than 50 years of the intended notification for acquisition.
The aforesaid judgments as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In Paramjeet Singh's case (supra), there was no notification published under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and in Anant Ram's case (supra), it was admitted that after Section 6 notification on 30.3.1989, Award was not passed.
In the present case, we find that the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued in the year 1961. It is when the land stand utilized for the construction of canal. It is too late for the petitioners to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court challenging the acquisition by way of a writ petition.
Consequently, the same is dismissed but if the petitioners have any grievance, it shall be open to the petitioners to establish their rights on the land in accordance with law in appropriate forum according to law.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 8.10.2012 rajeev/preeti