CWP No.9130 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 9130 of 2011 Date of decision: 30.5.2011 Onkar Singh Sandhu ...Petitioner vs Land Acquisition Collector and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Onkar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the Land Acquisition Collector, Gurdaspur, Improvement Trust, Gurdaspur, for making a reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the competent Court for apportionment of compensation. As per the averments made in the writ petition, land measuring14-1/2 marlas out of land measuring 1 kanal 1 marla in rect.No.25 Killa No.12/1/2(0-19), 12/2/1(0-2) located within the revenue estate of Gurdaspur, Hadbast No.335 was owned and possessed by respondents No.3 and 4. The aforesaid respondents entered into an agreement to sell the above said land with the petitioner on 6.10.2003 for a sum of Rs.17,40,000/-. It was further averred that the possession of the land was also handed over to the petitioner and he was in possession wherein he had constructed two shops on the plot after the agreement for sale. The last date for executing the sale deed was 30.3.2004, which was extended upto 1.8.2004. Respondents No.3 and 4 failed to turn up in the office of the Sub CWP No.9130 of 2011 2 Registrar for the registration of the sale deed on the stipulated date. Thus, the petitioner filed a civil suit against the aforesaid respondents on 25.7.2007 (Annexure P2). Respondents No.3 and 4 filed written statement (Annexure P3) wherein, though, they admitted the agreement to sell but denied that the petitioner was entitled to the relief of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell. Admittedly, the said civil suit is pending in the civil Court. It may also be relevant to notice at this stage that a specific averment has been made in the writ petition by the petitioner by way of an affidavit filed in the Court today that he has not prayed for any ad interim injunction in the civil suit filed by him. It is the further case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the civil suit he came to know that the aforesaid land of the petitioner had been acquired by the Improvement Trust Gurdaspur vide notification dated 15.3.2004 issued under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, and the award (Annexure P4) had been passed on 16.3.2007. It is the further case of the petitioner that he also came to know that respondent No.1 was distributing the compensation awarded to the landowners. On 16.12.2010, he approached respondent No.1 with his objections for apportionment of compensation to him on the basis of the agreement to sell and further prayed for making reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the civil Court. However, respondent No.1 has refused to do so. According to the petitioner, he is an interested person in the compensation and, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of respondent No.1 to refer the dispute to the competent Court under Sections 30 of the CWP No.9130 of 2011 3 Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and by not making the reference, respondent No.1 has erred at law and in these circumstances he is entitled to the relief claimed. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in the case of Barnikana Appalanaidu and others v. Barnikana Appayyamma, AIR 1983 Andhra Pradesh 177 and The Secretary of State for India represented by the Collector of Salem and another v. Kuppusami Chetti, 1924 Indian cases 82. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone though the pleadings and documents placed on the record of this writ petition. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that on the basis of agreement to sell in question he being the interested person as defined under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it was obligatory on the part of respondent No.1 to refer the dispute to the civil Court, is liable to be rejected at the outset. The petitioner is claiming his right on the basis of an agreement to sell executed by respondents No. 3 and 4 in his favour. Admittedly the right of the petitioner to the title of the suit property has not crystalized so far and the same is pending before the civil Court. Thus, the petitioner is already persuing his remedy before the civil Court for determination of his rights. Remedy under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is essentially a civil suit for determination of the right to receive the compensation between the parties. Herein, the petitioner is already before the civil Court for determination of his rights. The petitioner is having an efficacious and effective remedy by way of making a prayer before the Civil Court not to disburse the compensation to CWP No.9130 of 2011 4 respondents No.3 and 4 during the pendency of the civil suit. Not only this, it is well established that unless proved, on the basis of the agreement to sell title to suit property cannot be claimed. In Barnikana Appalanaidu's case (supra), agreement to sell in question stood proved before the Court and those findings were not disputed. In Kuppusami Chetti's case (supra), acquired property was subject to a mortgage. The mortgagee was aware of the award but he never made any claim before the authorities. The compensation was paid to the mortgagor. Later on mortgagee got a decree in his favour, a part of which remained unsatisfied. Mortgagee filed a claim against the government and in these circumstances while declining any relief against the State it was observed that the principles of the Land Acquisition Act are that the Crown should in the first instance be allowed to recognise the person in possession as ostensible owner. A mortgagee as such need not be recognised at all though he can, within a certain time and within certain limits, come in and institute proceedings provided under the Act. The judgments cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. For the reasons record hereinabove, we find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek any relief in the pending civil litigation in accordance with law. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge. May 30, 2011 rk