In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 11910 of 2007 Date of Decision: December 12, 2008 Parmod Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih PRESENT: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Palika Monga, AAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 6. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 11910 and 646 of 2007 as common questions of law have been raised. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for issuing direction to the respondents to accept the drafts sent by them which CWP No. 11910 of 2007 are equivalent to the amount received by them in lieu of acquisition of their plots in pursuance to the award dated 17.4.1990. 2. It is conceded position that the land belonging to the petitioners was acquired by issuance of notification dated 21.4.1987 under Section 4 and declaration made on 20.4.1988 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). The award was pronounced on 17.4.1990 and possession was taken, as is evident from the perusal of paras 2 and 3 of the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 6. Accordingly, the land vested in the respondent State free from all encumbrances as per the provisions of Section 16 of the Act. The petitioners were also paid compensation which was accepted by them. Petitioner No. 1, was paid compensation of Rs. 10,454/- on 26.3.1991, which is evident from the perusal of his representation dated 14.10.2005 (P-7). Likewise, petitioner No. 2 was also paid compensation of a sum of Rs. 10,454/- on 26.3.1991, which is evident from the perusal of letter dated 14.10.2005 addressed by her to the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Panchkula (P-8). According to the respondents the land has been developed by respondent Nos. 2 and 6-HUDA by carving out residential plots and commercial booth sites. They have also provided amenities to the area like water supply, sewerage, electricity, storm water, parks etc. by incurring expenditure of Rs. 3,92,00,000/- on the development works. 3. It is pertinent to mention that some other land owners filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3269 of 1990 (Sukhdev Sharma and 2 CWP No. 11910 of 2007 others v. State of Haryana and others) wherein the notifications acquiring the land were quashed vide judgment dated 29.9.1992 (P- 6). Some of the other land owners also approached this Court immediately thereafter and notifications in their cases were also quashed. The petitioners, however, did not file any petition either for quashing proceedings or with a prayer for refunding of compensation received by them. They for the first time filed an application before the Land Acquisition Collector on 14.10.2005 (P-7 & P-8) and offered refund of compensation amount along with interest @ 15%, which has been returned by the Land Acquisition Collector by letters dated 5.12.2005 (P-9 & P-10). 4. We have heard learned counsel at considerable length and perused the paper book with their able assistance. Learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to persuade us to accept the contention that once notifications acquiring the land has been quashed by this Court on 29.9.1992 (P-6) then the land of the petitioners could also not be acquired by the respondents. We repeatedly asked learned counsel for the petitioners for any reasonable explanation for the delay in filing these petitions in the year 2007. There is no explanation why the petitioners did not agitate their rights either in the year 1992 or within reasonable time thereafter and why they permit respondent Nos. 2 and 6 to develop the land permitting the third party rights coming into existence. It is also evident from the record that the petitioners did not make any offer to deposit back the amount of compensation which was paid to 3 CWP No. 11910 of 2007 them. As per their own showing petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were paid compensation on 26.3.1991, which they are deemed to have accepted without any demur. The Division Bench delivered judgment on 29.9.1992 (P-6) and on that basis no effort by the petitioners was made. They made representations on 24.9.2006, 27.11.2006, 18.2.2007 and 26.6.2007 (P-11 to P-14), which is more than 13 years after the judgment of this Court rendered on 29.9.1992 (P-6) in the case of Sukhdev Sharma and others (supra). In the absence of any reasonable explanation, the only irresistible inference is that the petitioners have accepted acquisition of their land and compensation amount in lieu thereof. Such an inference would be legitimate, especially when the rights of third parties have come into existence as the land has been developed by the HUDA by carving out residential plots and commercial booth sites. The HUDA has spent crores of rupees on the land, therefore, it is not possible to accept that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of judgment rendered by this Court in Sukhdev Sharma’s case (supra) in these petitions filed in 2007. Therefore, we do not find any merit in these petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) December 12, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 4