Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surender Kumar Katyal & Another vs State Of Haryana & Others on 9 September, 2013
Bench: Surya Kant, Surinder Gupta
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 19817 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 09.09.2013
Surender Kumar Katyal & another
.......... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & others
...... Respondents
*****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present : Mr. Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Jatin Salwan, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
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)
This writ petition can be safely termed as an abuse of process of law by the petitioners to stall the natural consequences of acquisition of their land made vide notifications dated 6.12.1989 and 27.11.1990 (Annexures P-1 & P-2) issued under Sections 4 & 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereby more than 46 acres of land situated within the revenue estate of Gohana, including about 22 acres land of the petitioners, was acquired to construct the new grain market, staff quarters, office building and rest house etc. at Gohana. The controversy which is still surviving, however, pertains to the land measuring about 4 acres, where the petitioners are said to have constructed a temple. Satyawan 2013.10.09 13:53 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19817 of 2013 2
2. The abovestated acquisition came to be challenged by the petitioners in CWP No. 16868 of 1990 wherein their dispossession was stayed. The writ petition was finally dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.4.2011, the operative part whereof reads as follows :-
"Today, during the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has shown a photograph to this court in support of his claim that a temple exists in the land sought to be released. However, a perusal of the photograph shows that the construction part of the temple is very small and the remaining land is just surrounded by a boundary wall and there exists no construction.
On the other hand, Sh. Kamal Sehgal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has placed on record a site plan showing the location of the land sought to be released by the petitioners. A perusal of the aforesaid site plan shows that the land of the petitioners falls in the 60 feet wide road and the same cannot be released.
In view of the afore-stated facts established on record to the effect that the land under acquisition falls in the road alignment, this court is satisfied that no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition.
No other point was argued.
Thus, we find no merit in this petition.
Dismissed."
3. The petitioners thereafter moved review application No. 244 of 2011 alleging that some material facts were concealed by the respondents at the time of hearing of the writ petition. The review application was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.8.2011 which says that :-
"We are not impressed with the arguments raised. In paragraph No. 3, it is specifically stated that common platform meant for placing and auctioning of the agricultural produce in front of shops No. 30 to 48 will not be able to be Satyawan 2013.10.09 13:53 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19817 of 2013 3 constructed, resulting into failure of the whole development plan of the New Grain Market, if the land in dispute is released from acquisition. It is further stated in paragraph No. 4 that the so-called Mandir was constructed over-night, when the notification was issued. It is further case of the applicants that the Mandir exists in 4 Acres of land. At the time of arguments when order was passed on April 25, 2011, a site plan was placed on record, which clearly indicates that the small building stated to be Mandir falls in the road alignment. We had seen the site plan and found that it was correct. No case is made out for review. Dismissed."
4. Still aggrieved, the petitioners preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 01.11.2011 observing thus :
"We have heard Shri Ranjeet Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners at some length and perused the record including the map (Annexure P-22) and are satisfied that the orders under challenge do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that in terms of the undertaking given by the respondents, the temple constructed on the land acquired by them shall be maintained by the concerned authorities."
5. The relentless petitioners then filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the Civil Court at Gohana seeking restraint order against the State of Haryana and other authorities from taking possession of the suit property comprising the acquired land. The plea taken before the Civil Court was that no award was passed within the statutory period prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act and there being thus no Satyawan 2013.10.09 13:53 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19817 of 2013 4 lawful acquisition of the suit property, the defendants be restrained from dispossessing the petitioners. The Civil Court by a well reasoned order dated 26.8.2013 dismissed the application for ad-interim injunction observing that no prima-facie case or balance of convenience was in favour of the petitioners. Immediate thereafter, the petitioners withdrew the civil suit on 3.9.2013 with liberty "to seek the appropriate remedy in the competent Court of law". Thereafter, this writ petition has been filed.
6. The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that since no award was passed qua their land within the period of two years from the date of publication of declaration (excluding the period of proceedings in Court) the subject acquisition has lapsed as mandated by Section 11-A of the Act. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Mulchand Khanumal Khatri vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2012(2) Apex Court Judgments 123 (S.C.) where their Lordships have ruled that in computing the period of two years for the purpose of passing award under Section 28-A of the Act, the period during which the interim relief granted by High Court remained operative have to be excluded. The petitioners' further case based on some information, said to have been obtained under the Right to Information Act, is that after excluding the period during which there was an interim stay in their favour by the High Court the period of two years if counted from the date of issue of Section 6 of the Act notification, stood expired on 1.4.2013. In this manner, it is urged on behalf of the petitioners, that the award could be passed on or before 1.4.2013 and since no such award was passed the acquisition proceedings stand lapsed.
7. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the contention noticed above, we are of the considered view that it merits rejection. We say Satyawan 2013.10.09 13:53 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19817 of 2013 5 so for the reason that the petitioners have placed on record a copy of the award dated 25.1.1991 (Annexure P-3), in which khasra numbers of the petitioners' land i.e. 178/1/1-10, 179/5-6 are duly mentioned and included in the acquired land for which the award was passed. It is specifically recited in the award dated 25.1.1991 (Annexure P-3) that :-
"Possession of the Land Today on 25.1.91 the possession of the land has been given except Killa No. 178/1/1-10 179/5-6 because the dispossession of these Khasra Numbers have been stayed by Honourable Punjab & Haryana High Court in writ petition No. 16868 dated 21.12.90.
As stated above the possession of land was not taken earlier by the department and as such the question of awarding any interest does not arise.
The acquired land will vest absolutely in the Acquiring Department free from all encumbrances with effect from today."
8. It, thus, emerges that though the award was passed in respect of the entire acquired land of the petitioners including the above mentioned khasra numbers, however, possession could not be taken as their dispossession was stayed by this Court. These facts have been duly noticed by the Land Acquisition Collector who vide his communication dated 3.9.2013 addressed to Tehsildar, Gohana informed that the possession of the land in question may be taken on 6.9.2013 at 10:00 A.M. as the Civil Court, Gohana has already vacated the ad interim stay.
9. Section 11-A of the Act casts a duty on the Collector to make an award under Section 11 of the Act within a period of two years from the date of publication of declaration and if no award is made during this period the entire acquisition proceedings stand lapsed. In the instant case, the Satyawan 2013.10.09 13:53 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19817 of 2013 6 intention to acquire the land was expressed by the State under Section 4 of the Act on 6.12.1989, whereas the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 27.11.1990. The award was passed within a few months of the said declaration i.e. on 25.1.1991. The petitioners thus cannot be heard to say that the mandatory period contained in Section 11-A of the Act has lapsed or that no award was passed. Their vague and evasive allegations that no amount of compensation was deposited or paid does not vitiate the acquisition proceedings. The petitioners, who were challenging the acquisition at one or other Forum, were not interested in receiving the compensation.
10. In our considered view the plea taken by the petitioners that no award was passed by the respondents within the time limitation under Section 11-A of the Act is nothing but a false plea to delay the delivery of possession of the acquired land even though the acquisition has already attained finality with the dismissal of special leave to appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
No interference with the impugned action is thus called for. Dismissed.
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE (SURINDER GUPTA) JUDGE 09.09.2013 'Satyawan' Satyawan 2013.10.09 13:53 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh