Punjab-Haryana High Court
Piara Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 4 July, 2012
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal, G.S. Sandhawalia
CWP No. 12294 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 12294 of 2012
Date of Decision: 4.7.2012
Piara Singh and others
....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA.
PRESENT: Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate for
Mr. R.D. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 12294 and 12314 of 2012 as according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the facts and issue involved herein are similar. For brevity, the facts are extracted from CWP No.12294 of 2012.
2. The petitioners in the instant writ petition are seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to release the amount of Rs.61,56,030/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum deducted at source from the amount of enhanced compensation of acquisition of agricultural land payable to them and deposited with respondent No.4. Further, a prayer has been made for quashing Form 16-A dated 24.6.2008 (Annexure P-3) whereby the respondents have CWP No. 12294 of 2012 -2- illegally and in contravention of Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the 1961 Act") have deducted the aforesaid amount at source from the amount of enhanced compensation of the agricultural land acquired.
3. Put shortly, the facts for adjudication of the present petition as narrated therein are that the petitioners' agricultural land situated in the revenue estate of village Patti Kaisth Seth, Hadbast No.24, Tehsil and District Kaithal was acquired by the State of Haryana for the public purposes for developing Sector 21, Urban Estate, Kaithal for residential, commercial and institutional sector to be developed by respondent No.3. A notification dated 9.8.2002 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act") was issued and published by the State Government. Thereafter, notification dated 8.8.2003 under Section 6 of the Act was also published. The Land Acquisition Collector, Hisar vide award dated 5.8.2005 assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of ` 5,00,000/- per acre and awarded a compensation of ` 23,52,17,582/- including the compensation for standing structures, tubewells and trees etc. Being dissatisfied, the petitioners and other similarly situated persons made references under Section 18 of the Act before the Additional District Judge, Kaithal who vide a common judgment dated 30.11.2006 (Annexure P-1) enhanced the compensation to ` 350/- per square yard. In pursuance thereof, the Land Acquisition Collector got prepared and issued Form-D and deposited an amount of ` 13,50,22,846/- in the reference court. Thereafter on 24.6.2008, respondent No.2 deposited the tax deducted at source amounting to ` 61,56,080/- in the bank account of respondent CWP No. 12294 of 2012 -3- No.4 as per Form 16-A. The petitioners received their respective shares out of the said enhanced compensation from the reference court. However, they failed to understand as to why a substantial amount of enhanced compensation had been deducted by way of tax deducted at source by respondent No.2 and deposited with respondent No.4. Thereafter, the petitioners sent a representation (Annexure P-4) to respondents No.2 to 4 to get their amount i.e., tax deducted at source back from the respondents. But no action thereon has been taken by the respondents. Hence, the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were entitled to refund of the deduction of tax at source in respect of the amount received by them on account of enhanced compensation on acquisition of the agricultural land. Reliance was placed upon the Division Bench judgments of this Court in CWP No. 9912 of 2009 (Risal Singh and another v. The Union of India and others) decided on 11.1.2010 (Annexure P-5) and CWP No. 16549 of 2010 (Bikramjeet Sood v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 15.9.2010 (Annexure P-6).
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not find any merit in the writ petitions. A perusal of Form-16A (Annexure P-3) clearly shows that the petitioners had received the amount of enhanced compensation and interest thereon. It is not disputed that on the element of interest income, income tax was payable by them. The reliance upon the Division Bench judgments in Risal Singh and Bikramjeet Sood's cases (supra), which were relating to receipt of enhanced compensation only and there was no element of interest CWP No. 12294 of 2012 -4- income in those cases, is of no help to them. Further, a perusal of Annexure P-3 shows that the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking refund of tax deducted at source which was made on 24.6.2008 after a lapse of more than four years. Under the circumstances, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
July 4, 2012 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
gbs JUDGE
CWP No. 12294 of 2012 -5-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12314 of 2012 Date of Decision: 4.7.2012 Sukha Singh and others ....Petitioners.
Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA.
PRESENT: Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate for Mr. R.D. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
For orders, see CWP No. 12294 of 2012 (Piara Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others).
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
July 4, 2012 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
gbs JUDGE