IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7490 of 1988 Date of Decision: March 24,2008 Khushal Singh and others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Hemant Sarin, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * Sabina, J. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this case was covered by the decision given in CWP No. 138 of 1988 (Karam Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another) decided on 5.11.1990 . It is stated that the said writ petition was dismissed in view of the decision rendered in CWP No. 3619 of 1986 decided on 6.10.1988. This writ petition was admitted vide order dated 27.9.1988 and it was ordered to be listed after the decision of CWP No. 3619 of 1988. The order passed in CWP No. 138 of 1988 is hereunder:- “This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 138, 6961 and 7055 of 1987 as well as 7219 and 7403 of 1988 as all of them involve identical question of law and fact. This bunch of five petitions were ordered to be heard along with CWP No. 3619 of 1986. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that the said Writ Petition has been dismissed by this Court on 6.10.1988. CWP No. 7490 of 1988 -2- I have perused the judgment rendered in CWP 3619 of 1986 and I find that the matter is squarely covered by the abovesaid judgment wherein it was held that:- “It is not in dispute that by the time the above-noted settlement was arrived at between the parties, i.e., on 27th April, 1986, the land of all the petitioners stood acquired in the sense that the Collector had taken possession of their lands in accordance with the provisions of Act, i.e. after the pronouncement of the respective awards u/s 12 of the Act. Not only that, in most of the cases the claims of the land-owners had even been adjudicated upon by the Courts as a result of the reference sought by them u/s 18 of the Act. In the light of this factual position, it is patent, as is sought to be agitated by the respondent- authorities, that the petitioners cannot take advantage of the above-noted settlement, and more particularly, of clause (i) of the same, as reproduced above. Clause (i) reads in no uncertain terms that Land “ to be acquired” was to be evaluated at the rate of rupees one lac per acre. As has been pointed out above, it is the conceded case of the petitioners that by the time the settlement was arrived at, i.e., 27th April, 1986, their lands already stood acquired. It is difficult to appreciate that having surrendered the possession of their lands under the Act, they could even be one of the agitators whose action CWP No. 7490 of 1988 -3- committee had arrived at a settlement with the government vide Annexure P-2.” It was further held that, “ I see no logic in the stand of the learned counsel that different lands cannot be acquired under the Act at different rates in the light of the various factors which go to determine the market value of the said lands; secondly, it is difficult to appreciate as to how an agreement between two parties can amount to discrimination against a third party. As has been pointed out above, the petitioners to my mind, were not even the agitators who could possibly be represented by the action committee to which a reference has been made in P2, when their lands already stood acquired i.e., the possession of their lands had been taken by the government.” In view of the decision rendered in CWP No. 3619 of 1986, all these writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs” In view of the above-mentioned position, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Sabina ) March 24, 2008 Judge arya