Civil Writ Petition No. 10214 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 10214 of 2008 Date of Decision: 17.11.2009 Surjit Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Sachin Kapoor, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. Mr. D.S. Gurna, Advocate for respondent No.4. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) On 16.9.1986, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1894”) was issued and land of the petitioner was acquired. Counsel for the petitioner is not aware as on which date notification under Section 6 of the Act 1894 was issued but it is not disputed that award of the land was given and compensation of award was given to petitioner and his brother- Civil Writ Petition No. 10214 of 2008 2 respondent No.4. Haryana Urban Development Authority had agreed to release 1 kanal 11 marlas of land after the award was announced in favour of petitioner. Though the Court is not inclined to enter into controversy whether land could be released after the award was pronounced. Suffice it to say that grievance of the petitioner is that he had paid development charges and possession ought to be handed over to him. Matter of fact is that the possession of the land was jointly delivered to the petitioner and his brother-respondent No.4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the development charges were accepted from him, Haryana Urban Development Authority ought to have given possession of the land to the petitioner exclusively not jointly to him and his brother. Mr. Sachin Kapoor, Advocate, appearing for respondents No.2 and 3, relied upon Annexure R3/1, copy of Roznamcha recorded on 7.8.1998 and states that after demarcation possession was given and this Roznamcha was signed by Surjit Singh, petitioner and his son Malkiat Singh who has preferred the present writ petition as attorney of Surjit Singh. Mr. Kapoor has taken a categoric stand that Haryana Urban Development Authority is not in possession of 1 kanal 11 marlas of land, therefore, regarding possession of the land, petitioner and his brother-respondent No.4 are in dispute. As to when possession was given, to whom it was given and who is entitled to it, are disputed questions of fact which are required to be determined by adducing evidence. Therefore, the above said questions raised cannot be determined in a writ petition. Petitioner is relegated to the Civil Court to seek relief sought in the present writ Civil Writ Petition No. 10214 of 2008 3 petition. With the observations made above, the present writ petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 17, 2009 “DK”