Civil Writ Petition No. 1782 of 2008 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 1782 of 2008
Date of decision: 20.07.2009
Kamaljit Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.
Present: Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Rita Kohli, Additional Advocate General,
Punjab for respondents No.1 and 6.
Mr. G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 5.
Mr. R.N.Raina, Advocate for respondent no.4.
*****
S.D.ANAND, J.
1. The challenge herein, at the hands of the petitioner, is to the
impugned action of the official respondents in having demolished her
construction on the announced premise that the land thereunder had been
“acquired so as to give effect to the Revitalization Plan of the Jallianwala
Bagh of 2007” and also a similar announcement that “the petitioner and
others will be suitably compensated for the acquisition”. In fact, the
allegation proceeds, the announced acquisition was a facade and the
respondents No. 3 and 5 did not supply the copies of any of the notification
or award in spite of the repeated request of the petitioner. The year of
acquisition was given out to be 1968.
Civil Writ Petition No. 1782 of 2008 -2-
****
2. As per averments in the petition, the petitioner purchased the
impugned commercial building bearing Municipal No.1500/3 situated at
Bazar Bagh Jallianwala at Amritsar “adjoining to the main entrance of the
Jallianwala Bagh” on 21.6.2004. There is a Gali (about 3.4 feet wide)
intervening “the boundary wall of the petitioner’s building and the adjoining
building bearing No.1499/3, this is one of the historical Gali’s (besides
others), which leads to the Jallianwala Bagh.”
3. It was on the above allegations that the petitioner applied for a
declaration that the respondents had “illegally taken the possession of
demolished the commercial building of the petitioner without making any
acquisition as per law and without paying any compensation.”. The
petitioner also applied for “the possession of the building” and “suitable
damages qua construction, besides suitable compensation”. Also applied
for is a declaration that that the property aforementioned does not form a
part of the scheme, notified vide notification dated 17.7.1968, and that the
award dated 4.12.1979 does not relate to it.
4. The contesting respondents averred that the petition deserves to
be dismissed on account of delay and latches inasmuch as the impugned
acquisition had been notified vide notification dated 17.7.1968 (Annexure
P-6); whereas the challenge herein had been filed only in the year 2008.
The further averment is that this land belonged to one Vijay Kumar whose
father Rattan Chand had entered appearance before the authorized (Land
Acquisition) Collector at the time of award proceedings and further that the
assessed compensation (Rs.5920/-) had been deposited in terms of the
award dated 4.12.1979 (Annexure P-10). The further averment, in the
Civil Writ Petition No. 1782 of 2008 -3-
****
context, is that the land aforementioned having been acquired in the year
1968 and the relevant award having been granted on 4.12.1979, Vijay
Kumar ceased to have any title in that land thereafter which he could have
validly transferred to the petitioner herein on 21.6.2004.
5. In a short affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1, the
averments made by the petitioner were denied and the pleas raised by
respondents No. 3 to 5 were reiterated. It was, otherwise, averred that the
Government of Punjab (respondent No.1) “has no direct role with regard to
the claim of the petitioner.”
6. The grievances presently canvassed before us to obtain
invalidation of the impugned act of official respondents, are as under:-
i) “The property of the petitioner is not a part of the plan
acquisition as set out vide notification dated 17.7.1968
(Annexure P-6)”.
ii) The impugned scheme had not been executed within the
period of three years envisioned under Sub Clause (2) of
Section 12 of the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act,
1951.
iii) An oral assurance for the allotment of alternative site has
not been honoured by the official respondents till date.
7. In the context of the grievance canvassed in the form of item
No. (i), the learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with the
relevant site plan, a perusal where of convincingly proves that land
comprised in Municipal No.1500/3was indeed included in the impugned
acquisition notification (Annexure P-6). Faced with the predicament
Civil Writ Petition No. 1782 of 2008 -4-
****
aforementioned, the learned counsel concedes before us that the averment
with regard to subject of the aforesaid item of grievance has been found to
be factually incorrect.
8. Insofar as the grievance indicated at item No. (ii) is concerned,
there also the petitioner is not on a firmer footing. For appropriate
adjudication of the relevant controversy, we would quote hereunder the
provisions of Section 12 of the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act,
1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) :-
“12. Execution of scheme by the Trust :- (1) On possession
of the land comprised in any sanctioned scheme been delivered
to the Trust it shall proceed to execute the said scheme.
(2) The Trust shall, as soon after but not later than three
years from the date of sanction of the scheme, submit for the
scrutiny of the State Government an accurate statement which
shall contain the following particulars:
(a) The actual cost of the scheme
(b) The income derived from the scheme
( c) The particulars and the estimated value of the plots
and any material thereon that remain to be sold; and
(d) The estimated valued of the other sources of
incomes from the scheme which remain outstanding.
(3) The State Government shall after such scrutiny as it may
deem necessary, notify the details of the aforesaid statement.”
9. It would be evident from a perusal of the above quoted
provisions that there was no compulsive requirement for the Improvement
Civil Writ Petition No. 1782 of 2008 -5-
****
Trust/respondents to execute that scheme within three years from the date
of sanction thereof. We find that all that Sub Clause (2) of Section 12 of
the Act quoted above provides is that Improvement Trust has to
compulsively submit relevant particulars to the State for the scrutiny of the
State Government within three years “from the date of sanction of the
scheme”. It is thereafter the responsibility of the State Government to notify
the details of the statement aforementioned. The averred/argued delay on
the part of the State Government in the execution thereof does not affect the
validity of the impugned acquisition. We do not, thus, find any force in the
grievance.
10. Insofar as the last advocated grievance is concerned, it too is
denuded of merit. It was a case of pure and simple acquisition under a duly
notified scheme. For want of any documentation, we are not in a position to
persuade ourselves to find any force in the averment made by the petitioner
that there was any promise of allotment of an alternative site to her. Even
otherwise, the grievance does not merit cognizance in the absence of any
pleadings to that effect. It is to state the obvious that the official
respondents would have responded to only those averments, factual or
otherwise, which are pleaded in the petition. It is, thus, apparent that the
grievance merits to be discarded for want of pleadings to that effect too.
11. We would also like to notice here that the petitioner, in her own
discretion, opted to refrain from filing a rejoinder. It would be appropriate
to point out here that the contesting respondents had made fact based
averment in the counter to the effect that purported predecessor-in-interest
of the petitioner had ceased to have any title to the property under reference
Civil Writ Petition No. 1782 of 2008 -6-
****
with the acquisition thereof vide notification dated 17.7.1968 (Annexure P-
6) and grant of the award dated 4.12.1979 (Annexure P-10). Obviously, he
just was not in a position to pass on to the petitioner a title which himself
ceased to have on account of the acquisition of the property
aforementioned. There is also a precise averment by the contesting
respondents that father of Vijay Kumar aforementioned had participated in
the award proceedings and further that the compensation assessed by the
competent authority had been deposited in the Treasury. If the claimant/land
owner, at that point of time, did not opt to withdraw the deposited
compensation, he cannot be heard to draw any benefit therefrom. The same
would, obviously, apply with equal force to whosoever claims to have
acquired title from him. This is, ofcourse, subject to our finding that Vijay
Kumar ceased to have title in the property under reference and he was not
competent to transfer any title therein to the petitioner on 21.6.2004.
12. In the light of the foregoing observations, we dismiss the writ
petition. There will, however, be no order qua the costs of the cause.
(S.D.ANAND)
JUDGE
July 20, 2009 (J.S.KHEHAR)
Pka JUDGE