Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shakuntla Devi vs Satish Bhardwaj Land Acquisition ... on 19 March, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
CM No.2022-CII of 2012 in
COCP No.1498 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CM No.2022-CII of 2012 in
COCP No.1498 of 2011
Date of decision: 19.03.2013
Shakuntla Devi ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Satish Bhardwaj Land Acquisition Collector & anr. ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner(s).
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
The land of the petitioner herein was acquired vide notification dated 26.6.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the 'Act') and award in respect of the said land was passed on 17.6.1992 and possession of the acquired land was taken. On a reference filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, compensation was enhanced by the Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide award dated 24.8.2009 in LAC No.204 and 207 of 1997. The enhanced compensation was deposited by respondent No.1-Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Panchkula after deducting TDS. Subsequently, another chunk of agricultural land in village Bana Madanpur and Jhuriwala, Tehsil and District Panchkula, belonging to the petitioner was also acquired for which award was passed by the LAC on 9.3.1998 and on a reference filed CM No.2022-CII of 2012 in COCP No.1498 of 2011 2 under Section 18 of the Act, compensation was enhanced vide award dated 20.4.2009 in LAC No.65 of 2001.
The enhanced compensation was subsequently deposited with the Executing Court after deduction of TDS.
As per the further averments in the aforesaid cases, while depositing the amount of enhanced compensation on 13.8.2010, the LAO deducted the tax at source @ 20%.
The petitioner herein filed the instant contempt petition relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Risal Singh v. Union of India (2010) 321 ITR 252 (P&H) and also Bikramjit Sood v. State of Punjab and others i.e. CWP No.16549 of 2010 decided on 15.9.2010.
The aforesaid contempt petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.8.2011. The aforesaid order reads thus:
"Learned State counsel for respondent No.1, Mr. Paramjit Batta, on the instructions of Mr. Ram Gopal Verma Patwari, states that the entire amount of T.D.S deducted has been received back from the Income Tax Department; amount of TDS, which was deducted earlier, received from the Income Tax Department, shall be disbursed to the petitioner(s) in accordance with law positively within six weeks from today.
On the statement made by Additional Advocate General Haryana, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to get it revived, if the payment CM No.2022-CII of 2012 in COCP No.1498 of 2011 3 is not made within six weeks.
Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to get it revived after six weeks, if orders are not complied with."
It is a matter of record that in compliance of the aforesaid order, a sum of Rs.1,53,85,459/- was returned to the claimants on 20.10.2011. However, the remaining amount was kept by the Income Tax Authorities.
Thereafter, the petitioner moved the civil misc. application for revival of the contempt petition alleging that the entire amount as deducted by the LAC and ordered by this Court on 23.8.2011 was not refunded to her.
Keeping in view the stand taken by the parties, this Court passed the order dated 8.2.2013 whereby amount of Rs.3,18,70,577/- which was refunded by the Income Tax Department to the Land Acquisition Collector was ordered to be paid to the Income Tax Department as well as the petitioners in equal shares as it is not disputed by the Income Tax Authorities before this Court that the TDS could have been deducted only @ 10% and not @ 20%.
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, has informed this Court that the aforesaid amount has been disbursed to the petitioner as well as Income Tax Authorities as per the order dated 8.2.2013.
Thus, there is no controversy with regard to the fact that now the entire amount as deducted on account of TDS stands adjusted/ appropriated and a sum of Rs.1,59,35,289/- has remained with the Income Tax Authorities as TDS @ 10% as the interest component on the enhanced CM No.2022-CII of 2012 in COCP No.1498 of 2011 4 compensation.
At this stage, it may further be noticed that Mr. Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, has informed this Court that the revised TDS certificates have been issued to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to seek refund of the aforesaid amount and to file revised returns and matching adjustments of the aforesaid amount as per law from the Income Tax Authorities.
However, it may also be noticed at this stage that the amount of TDS as deducted on 13.8.2010 and which was over and above the amount of Rs.1,59,35,289/- has remained either with the Income Tax Authorities or with the Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner is claiming that she is entitled to the interest whereas the respondents have denied their liability to pay any interest for the aforesaid period.
Be that as it may, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the LAO to decide the question of interest payable to the petitioner, for the aforesaid period for which she was denied the said amount, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The LAO shall also decide the question of rate of interest as well as the liability to pay either of the respondents, if any, payable to the petitioner.
The parties shall be at liberty to challenge such order of the LAO in accordance with law.
March 19, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE