Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahinder Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 28 September, 2010
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Augustine George Masih
CWP No. 4313 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 4313 of 2010
Date of decision: 28.09.2010
Mahinder Singh and another
..... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr. Sandeep Panwar, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana,
for respondents No. 1 and 2.
None for respondent No. 3.
Mr. H.S.Saggu, Advocate,
for respondent No. 4.
***
JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL)
It is an admitted fact that under some bona fide belief, compensation for the acquired land was received by respondent No. 4. On 07.09.2010, following order was passed by this Court:-
" An affidavit of Superintendent of Police, Kaithal filed in Court is taken on record. FIR under Sections 406, 420 IPC has been registered against respondent No.4 and others on 20.7.2010, the investigation is going on.
Counsel for respondent No.4 states that money was received on account of a fact that at the time of acquisition of CWP No. 4313 of 2010 2 the land also at the time of pronouncement of award, land was shown in the name of their father, who had died in the year 2004. Sale deed executed by their father in the year 2001 was not to their notice. Under a bona fide belief that the property belongs to them, they received the compensation and thereafter, moved an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of compensation amount, which was also allowed and under the same belief, they received the enhanced amount also. Counsel further states that after getting notice from this Court, they got the total amount calculated along with interest due to the petitioner, which, according to them, comes to ` 1,41,460/-. He has shown to us a demand draft for the above said amount in the name of Land Acquisition Collector, Sector 8, Panchkula. Liberty is granted to respondent No.4 to deposit this demand draft with the above said officer within three days. The officer concerned shall calculate the entire amount with interest etc. recoverable from respondent No.4 and others and submit a calculation sheet to this Court. The Collector shall also intimate as to how much amount is due to the petitioner from respondent No.4.
Counsel for the petitioner states that if expenses borne by the petitioner for this unnecessary litigation are paid to him by respondent No.4, he has no hesitation in compounding the criminal matter pending against respondent No.4 and others.
Adjourned to 28.9.2010.
The Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula is directed to furnish a calculation sheet in this Court on the next date of CWP No. 4313 of 2010 3 hearing and shall also encash the demand draft, to be received from respondent No.4 and then bring a demand draft in the name of the petitioner for the amount payable to him.
The State counsel is directed to send intimation to the Collector concerned forthwith."
In response thereto, two cheques bearing Nos. 371783 and 371784 respectively dated 21.09.2010 on Indusind bank drawn in the name of the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 1,43,143/- have been handed over by the State counsel to the counsel for the petitioner. To compensate the petitioner for this unnecessary litigation, counsel for respondent No. 4 has paid a cash amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the counsel for the petitioner in Court.
After going through the facts of this case, we are satisfied that there was no mala fide intention on the part of respondent No. 4 to receive the money in question and he has received the money only because the land was shown in the name of his father, who had died in the year 2004. Under that very bona fide belief, they also moved an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of compensation. It appears that sale of land by his father was not known to respondent No. 4. If that is so, we feel that there was no criminal intention on the part of respondent No. 4 to receive the amount. He has been penalized and was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- only because that he has delayed the return of money received by him.
In view of the above, this writ petition does not survive and is disposed of as the claim of the petitioner has been fully satisfied.
The petitioner and the Collector are directed to write to the CWP No. 4313 of 2010 4 police authorities to drop the proceedings against respondent No. 4. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail of any other legal remedy which may be available to him as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, if so advised.
( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE September 28, 2010 pj