IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 9988 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 16, 2009 Gurbax Singh and others. … Petitioners Versus Union of India and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioners. J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral) According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the grievance of the petitioners has been recorded in paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the instant writ petition. Paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 are being extracted hereunder:- “4. That since as per the revenue record, which was available even on the date of issuance of the aforesaid two notifications, the petitioners were and are even now the proprietors of Village Chak Ala Baksh, therefore, the amount which respondents no. 1 to 3 have already deposited with respondent no.4 towards the aforesaid land measuring 5 Kanals – 13 Marlas comprised in Khasra Nos. 63(1-4), 66//1 (1-5), 65 (1-1) and 67 (2-3), is though payable to the petitioners and CWP No. 9988 of 2009 other proprietors of the said Village as per their share but the same is not being disbursed to them by the respondent no.4 on the alleged ground that since the said land now falls within the Municipal limits, therefore, the same is to be disbursed to respondent no.5 i.e. the Municipal Committee, Mukerian. The said approach of respondent no.4 is absolutely wrong and fallacious. Even if, the aforesaid land has come within the Municipal limits, the ownership thereof remains that of the proprietors of the village and the Municipal Committee, Mukerian neither becomes owner thereof nor gets any entitlement to receive the compensation amount in respect of the said land. 5. That the petitioners are the proprietors of the Village Chak Ala Baksh and the same is very much apparent from the jamabandi for the year 2006-07 of Village Chak Ala Baksh, a true translation of which is also attached herewith as Annexure P/2. In the said jamabandi (Annexure P/2), respective share holding of petitioners No. 1 to 6 has been duly reflected. Similarly, petitioners no. 7 to 10 are also amongst the various other co-sharers/proprietors of Village Chak Ala Baksh, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur.” Based on the aforesaid, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that after the issuance of the notification by the Government of India dated 24.12.2004 under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and thereafter the notification dated 11.07.2005 under Section 3D of the said 2 CWP No. 9988 of 2009 Act, land falling in the revenue estate of Village Chak Ala Baksh measuring 5 Kanals and 13 Marlas was acquired. The aforestated land according to the petitioners has been described as Mushtarka Malkan in the revenue records. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the petitioners have share in the aforestated Mushtarka Malkan, and as such, were entitled to be paid compensation in terms of their shares. We have considered the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the background of the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 specially Section 3H thereof. Section 3H of the Act is being extracted hereunder:- “3H. Deposit and payment of amount.- (1) The amount determined under section 3G shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority before taking possession of the land. (2) As soon as may be after the amount has been deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall on behalf of the Central Government pay the amount to the person or persons entitled thereto. (3) Where several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them. (4) If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall 3 CWP No. 9988 of 2009 refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. (5) Where the amount determined under section 3G by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the arbitrator may award interest at nine per cent per annum on such excess amount from the date of taking possession under section 3D till the date of the actual deposit thereof. (6) Where the amount determined by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the excess amount together with interest, if any, awarded under sub-section (5) shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (4) shall apply to such deposit.” There is no material record of the case to demonstrate, that the petitioners ever filed any application under sub-section (3) of Section 3H of the Act, after the alleged determination at the hands of the competent authority, as is apparent from the pleadings extracted hereinabove to pay the entire compensation for the land under reference to the Municipal Committee, Mukerian. The petitioners did not even file any application under sub-section (4) of Section 3H of the Act extracted hereinabove. In view of the above, we are of the view, that despite the fact that the petitioners had an effective and efficacious alternative remedy, they 4 CWP No. 9988 of 2009 have not availed of the same. The instant writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to avail of their alternative remedy, if they are so advised. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge July 16, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 5