Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balbir Kumar & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 26 July, 2012
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No. 14053 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 14053 of 2012
Date of Decision : 26.07.2012
Balbir Kumar & others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Pankaj Nanhera, advocate
for the petitioners.
****
HEMANT GUPTA, J.(Oral)
1. The petitioners were owners of land measuring 31 Kanals 17 Marlas comprised in Khasra Nos. 97/23, 32, 33 and 106//3/2, 4, 9/1/1, 9/1/2 situated in village Chhachhrauli. The said land was part of the land intended to be acquired by the State Government for a public purpose vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 21.1.1981 whereby 28 acres, 4 Kanals and 16 Marlas of land was notified for acquisition. The award in respect of the land in acquisition was announced on 9.5.1986.
2. Before announcing the award, there was an order of stay of dispossession in writ petition No. 2610 of 1984 filed by the predecessor of the petitioners. Therefore, in respect of the land of the petitioners, the Land Acquisition Collector observed as under in the award so announced:-
"MARKET VALUE My predecessor vide award No.4-A dated 12.06.1984 awarded a compensation of Rs.43,000/- per acre for the part of CWP No. 14053 of 2012 -2- the land notified under the same notification u/s-4. I have seen the land and it is in the same block only a road leading to Dadupur divides it in two parts. Therefore, I also award the same compensation i.e. Rs.43,000/- per acre which is adequate, justified and equitable. However, in respect of the land measuring 48 kanals 3 marlas comprising khasra no. 97/23, 32, 33, 31, 25/2, 34, 98/21/2, 105/1, 2, 9, 10, 11/1, 106/3/2, 4, 9/1/2, 5, 6/1, 26 which is under orders of dispossession of the Hon'ble High Court, I do not take possession."
xx xx xx xx xx
"POSSESSION OF THE LAND
The possession of the land acquired vide this award will be taken over after offering the compensation. However, possession of the land comprising khasra nos. 97/23, 32, 33, 31, 25/2, 34, 98/21/2, 105/1, 2, 9, 10, 11/1, 106/3/2, 4, 9/1/2, 5, 6/1, 26 whose area is 48 kanals and 3 marlas is not being taken as the Hon'ble High Court is stay dispossession - are still operative in respect of the same possession in respect of land measuring 42 kanals and 19 marlas is being take as its owner to his name deleted from the writ petition.
The land thus acquired will vest in the ownership of the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, free from all encumbrances, from the date of taking over the possession."
3. The writ petition filed by the predecessors of the petitioners was dismissed on 03.08.2010 (P-5). The Special Leave Petition against the said order also stand dismissed on 10.12.2010 (P-6).
4. In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents are taking possession of their land without announcing award as possession can not be taken in pursuance of the award dated 9.5.1986.
5. We do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the earlier writ petition filed by the predecessors of the petitioners, there was an order of stay of dispossession. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Collector announced CWP No. 14053 of 2012 -3- the award, but did not take possession, which is evident from the extract reproduced above. Once the writ petition has been dismissed staying the dispossession of the petitioner, the Land Acquisition Collector became entitled to take possession. The protection regarding possession came to end with the decision of the writ petition.
6. The petitioners have no cause to invoke the writ jurisdiction having remained unsuccessful in the earlier writ petition filed by their predecessor.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
26.07.2012 (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
'sp'/vimal JUDGE