Punjab-Haryana High Court
Siri Om And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 April, 2014
Bench: Surya Kant, Lisa Gill
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.6446 of 2014
Date of Decision: April 03, 2014
Siri Om and others .....Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE Mrs.JUSTICE LISA GILL.
----
Present : Mr.B.K.Bagri, Advocate, for the petitioners.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
The petitioners impugn the order dated 24.09.2013 said to have been received on 03.10.2013 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Rohtak, whereby their application for not disbursing the compensation of acquired land to private respondent Nos.3 to 13, has been dismissed.
The controversy has arisen out of acquisition of land measuring 43 kanals, situated within the revenue estate of village Liwan, Tehsil and District Sonepat, which is fully described in para No.2 of the writ petition. The petitioners claim that their predecessor-in-interest had purchased the land measuring 49 kanals by way of a registered sale deed but a suit for possession by way of pre-emption in respect of land measuring 43 kanals filed by the private respondents and/or their predecessors-in-interest was decreed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Kumar Mohinder 2014.04.24 11:51 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.6446 of 2014 [2] Subsequently, the said land acquired by State of Haryana and compensation amount of Rs.54,34,235/- is pending disbursement before the Land Acquisition Collector. The petitioners moved an application for not disbursing the said amount on the plea that they have filed another civil suit questioning the judgment and decree passed in the earlier suit as the said suit was "for partial pre-emtion" hence not maintainable. According to them, it is imperative upon the Land Acquisition Collector to withhold the disbursement of compensation till the 2nd civil suit is decided. The application has been, however, turned down by the Land Acquisition Collector observing that the civil litigation has already been attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it would not be justifiable for him to withhold the payment of compensation. He has relied upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugns order.
It is contended that only 43 kanals land was subject matter of civil suit No.100 of 1981 which was decreed against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. The land which was actually purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was 49 kanals, hence, the respondents are not entitled to compensation for the entire acquired land.
We, as of now, do not comment upon the merits of the contention as it has a direct bearing on the second civil suit claimed to have been filed by the petitioners. Suffice it for us to observe that the view taken by the Land Acquisition Collector is perfectly in order, just and fair. A civil court decree which has attained finality has been rightfully given effect and Kumar Mohinder 2014.04.24 11:51 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.6446 of 2014 [3] recognition by the Land Acquisition Collector.
No interference, thus, is called for in the impugned order.
Dismissed.
[SURYA KANT]
JUDGE
April 03, 2014 [LISA GILL]
Mohinder JUDGE
Kumar Mohinder
2014.04.24 11:51
I attest to the accuracy of this
order
Chandigarh