IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 23.11.2010 COCP No.1519 of 2010 (O&M) Vimla Goel and others ...Petitioners Versus S.S.Saini and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Anoop Sharma, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No.2. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) This Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioners on 19.11.2008 by issuing two directions i.e. (i) to pay compensation alongwith interest till the date of deposit of the compensation amount; and (ii) to represent HUDA authorities for the allotment of plots under the ‘Oustees Policy’. In terms of such directions, an order has been passed by the Estate Officer, HUDA, on 25.09.2010 declining the claim of the petitioners for a plot as an Oustees. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he shall avail such remedy as may be available to the petitioners in respect of declining the claim of the petitioners as an ‘Oustees’. However, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that non- payment of compensation alongwith interest as per the directions of this Court shows that the direction of this Court has not been complied with. C.R.No.1519 of 2010 A perusal of the order passed by this Court shows that the compensation was ordered to be released to the petitioners, subject to verification of their title, if so required by the authorities. In the reply, it has been pointed out that the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued on 21.12.1994, whereas the petitioners have purchased the land on 07.08.1995. In terms of Section 11 of the Act, the objections required to be considered are in respect of any person, who has been given notice under Section 9 to the measurements made under Section 8 and into the value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation. The relevant date of determining the rights of the parties is the date of publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Act. Subsequent purchase of the land may entitle the purchaser to claim apportionment in proceedings under Section 30 of the Act i.e what is meant by the Court, when it is observed that the compensation shall be released subject to verification of the entitlement. In view of the said fact, I do not find that the petitioners can claim compensation de hors the statutory provisions and on the strength of contempt proceedings. Consequently, the present contempt petition is dismissed. 23.11.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2