CWP No. 18577 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 18577 of 2007
Date of decision: 6.1.2009
Amar Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. A.K.Kalsy, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.S.Dadwal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr.D.V.Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Mr.N.S.Vashist, Advocate for respondent No.3.
-.-
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,J. (Oral)
1. This petition seeks quashing of notification dated 10.12.1973
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and notification dated
27.2.1976 under Section 6 of the said Act.
2. Case of the petitioner is that 7 kanals 8 marlas of the land of the
petitioner was covered by the impugned notifications for acquisition of land
for planned development. Acquisition was challenged by some land owners
in CWP No. 1622 of 1976 which was allowed on 15.3.1983 vide Annexure
P-8 on the ground of delay in publication. Another writ petition was filed in
this Court being CWP No. 238 of 1980 by an aggrieved party i.e. M/s
R.S.Steel Industries which was dismissed on 13.3.1980 on the ground of
delay and laches. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal
CWP No. 18577 of 2007 2
vide order dated 18.2.1992 Annexure P-9 recording the statement made on
behalf of the State that the said appellant would be granted exemption. Vide
order dated 24.1.1995 Annexure P-10, exemption to the extent of 3 kanals 8
marlas of land was granted in favour of M/s R.S.Steel Industries.
3. Case of the petitioner is that M/s R.S. Steel was granted
exemption, whereas despite representations made, the petitioner has not
been granted exemption. The petitioner continues to be in possession and,
therefore, it cannot be held that the land has vested in the State.
4. The respondent-State contests this petition. In its reply, it has
been stated that the petitioner earlier filed a writ petition in this Court being
CWP No. 4952 of 1989 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.4.1989
vide Annexure P-15 on the ground that the petitioner wanted to avail his
remedy under the ordinary law. Thereafter the petitioner filed a writ
petition in Hon’ble the Supreme Court being Writ Petition (Civil) 398 of
2000 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.11.2000 on the ground that
petitioner could seek relief in this Court. The petitioner did not file any writ
petition in this Court almost for 7 years and the present petition was filed on
23.11.2007. The earlier writ petition having been dismissed as withdrawn,
the second writ petition could not be entertained on the same cause of
action. It has also been stated that possession of the land has been taken and
compensation has been duly deposited. It has also been stated that land
covered by construction was 3 kanals 8 marlas which has been exempted to
M/s R.S.Steel Industries which belongs to the petitioner who was running
the same.
5. Question for consideration is whether acquisition is liable to be
quashed on the ground that physical possession has not been taken or on the
CWP No. 18577 of 2007 3
ground of discrimination on account of order of release in favour of M/s
R.S. Steel Industries on 24.1.1995.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.E.M.L. Employees House Buildings
Corporation Society Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & others AIR 2004 SC
5054 and a judgment of this Court in Devinder Kumar Jain v. State of
Haryana and others 1995 AIHC 4227 and submits that the State cannot
follow the policy of pick and choose.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere taking of
symbolic possession is not enough to complete the acquisition unless the
actual possession is taken. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of this
Court in Jagjit Singh & others v. State of Punjab & others RLR 1994 (1)
399.
8. We do not find any merit in the contentions raised by learned
counsel for the petitioner.
9. The acquisition took place in the year 1973 and the petitioner
did not take any step to challenge the same till 1989 when CWP No. 4952
of 1989 was filed and was withdrawn for availing remedy under the
ordinary law. Thereafter the petitioner did not take any further steps till
filing of writ petition in Hon’ble Supreme Court being Writ Petition (C) No.
398 of 2000 which was also dismissed as withdrawn to file a writ petition
before this Court. However, after 7 years the present petition has been filed.
10. There is no material on record to show that the case of the
petitioner for release of land is at par with M/s R.S.Steel Industries whose
land measuring 3 kanals 8 marlas was released. The stand of the State is that
the case of M/s R.S. Steel Industries was on the different footing being
CWP No. 18577 of 2007 4
related to constructed area. Unlike the case considered in judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.E.M.L.’s case (supra), wherein the Land
Acquisition Collector had recommended release after recording a finding,
which was ignored, there is no recommendation or finding in favour of the
petitioner. Judgments in B.E.M.L.’s case (supra) and Devinder Kumar Jain’s
case (supra) are thus distinguishable.
11. As regards not taking possession, it is settled that once award is
made and even symbolic possession taken, land vests in the State.
Reference may be made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
P.K.Kulburqe v. State of Karnatka 2005 (12) SCC 489 which also refers to
earlier Supreme Court judgment in Balwant Narain Bhagde v. M.D.
Bhagwat AIR 1975 SC 1767 which has been referred in Single Bench
Judgment of this Court in Jagjit Singh’s case (supra). Judgment of learned
Single Judge of this Court in Jagjit Singh’s case (supra) cannot be read to
the contrary.
12 In view of the above, there is no ground to interfere on merits.
Though objection raised on behalf of the State that earlier withdrawal of the
writ petition without liberty to file another writ petition would be bar to the
present petition, apart from bar on the ground of delay and laches, may have
substance, we need not go into this aspect in view of finding on merits.
13. The petition is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
6.1.2009 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
mk JUDGE