C.W.P. No. 1080 of 1987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1080 of 1987 Date of Decision: November 08, 2010 Nirman Singh son of Chanan Singh etc. ---Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G. Punjab, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Kamaljit Singh, Advocate, for Mr. R.S.Khosla, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. *** JASBIR SINGH, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash a notification dated 19.11.1980 (P-1) proposing to acquire 258.04 Acres of land including land of the petitioners. Further challenge has been made to a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 11.11.1983 (P-2). It is not in dispute that regarding land under acquisition, Award was passed on 12.07.1984, for the structures, Award was passed after lapse C.W.P. No. 1080 of 1987 2 of period of two years from the date of implementation of Act No. 68 of 1984, which was made effective w.e.f. 24.09.1984. In this writ petition, it is primary grievance of counsel for the petitioners that Award qua structures was not passed before 23.09.1986 and as such the entire acquisition proceedings had lapsed. Heard counsel for the parties. We feel that after passing of the Award qua the land on 12.07.1984, this writ petition is not maintainable in view of the ratio of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar vs. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C.Padma vs. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; Star Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698 and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280. Be that as it may, it is apparent from the record that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 19.11.1980. Declaration was issued on 11.11.1983. Award was passed qua the land under acquisition on 12.07.1984. The petitioners remained satisfied with the notifications issued and made no challenge to the acquisition proceedings. They filed this writ petition in the month of February, 1987 by stating that as the Award for the superstructures has not been passed up to 23.09.1986, the acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have been lapsed. C.W.P. No. 1080 of 1987 3 We feel that no benefit of the above-said averment can be given to the petitioners in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohanji vs. State of U.P., JT (1995) 8 SC 599. In the above- said judgment, dealing with a similar situation, it was observed as under:- “5. A perusal of the award dated 23.09.1986 leaves no doubt that the compensation awarded therein is for the entire land measuring 0.99 acres bearing Plot No. 1311 belonging to the appellants which was acquired in the proceeding. It also appears from the award that the valuation report which had been sought from the Public Works Department had not been received and, therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer contemplated determination of compensation for the building in addition to the compensation awarded for the entire land being made on a subsequent date after the expiry of the specified period of two years under Section 11 of the Act. The question is whether in these circumstances it can be said that no award had been made under Section 11 of the Act in the proceeding to result in lapse of the entire proceeding for the acquisition of the land? It is no doubt true that the entire award which is contemplated under Section 11 of the Act by virtue of the prescription in Section 11-A has to be made within the period of two years failing which the entire proceeding shall lapse. The question is C.W.P. No. 1080 of 1987 4 whether it can be said in the present case that no award has been made under Section 11 of the Act in this proceeding? In our view it cannot be said that no award under Section 11 has been made for the land acquired. Admittedly, compensation has been determined in the award so made for the entire area of 0.99 acre. In view of the fact that no piecemeal award by making a subsequent award after the expiry of the period of two years is contemplated in law, the award dated 23-9-1986 must be construed as the whole award made under Section 11 awarding compensation for the entire area of 0.99 acre with no compensation awarded for the building. The seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Act treating the award as one in which compensation had been determined and awarded only for the entire land measuring 0.99 acre but no compensation was awarded for the building therein. The appellants had the remedy to claim compensation for the building in accordance with law treating the award made as not awarding any compensation for the building. That is however a different matter and it does not require any further consideration in this context. It is sufficient to say that the award dated 23-9-1986 made within the period specified in Section 11-A of the Act must be construed as an award under Section 11 in the proceedings for acquisition of the appellants' land bearing Plot No. 1311 having a total area of 0.99 acre. The contention that C.W.P. No. 1080 of 1987 5 the entire proceeding for acquisition of the land has lapsed by virtue of Section 11-A cannot, therefore, be accepted.” The opinion expressed above was also reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Sharan Pal Singh and others, Civil Appeals No. 11850-53 of 1995, decided on 14.12.1995. At the time of arguments, counsel for the petitioners states that some negotiation is going on between the petitioners and the HUDA for release of their land. Be that as it may, no relief can be given to the petitioners on that account. However, the authorities be at liberty to give any relief to the petitioners, as per law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH JUDGE November 08, 2010 pj