CWP No. 14338 of 2011 and connected writ petition 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.08.2011 CWP No. 14338 of 2011 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ….. PETITIONER VERSUS Het Lal and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 14345 of 2011 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ….. PETITIONER VERSUS Het Ram and another ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr.Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner *** Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This order will dispose of two writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 14338 and 14345 of 2011. For the purpose of dictating order, facts are being taken from CWP No. 14338 of 2011. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to an Award passed on 08.06.2009 (P-6). The said Award was passed by the CWP No. 14338 of 2011 and connected writ petition 2 Additional District Judge, Faridabad under Section 28-A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act'). As per facts on record, the private respondents filed an application on 11.02.1993 (P-1) under Section 28-A of the Act, claiming compensation in terms of an Award passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal on 11.02.1993. The Land Acquisition Collector sent that application for adjudication to the Tribunal by invoking the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. However, the Tribunal returned that matter to the Land Acquisition Collector to decide it in terms of the provisions of Section 28-A(3) of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector, thereafter on 29.09.2005 dismissed that application. The private respondents then filed an application before the Land acquisition Tribunal on 19.11.2005 and vide Award dated 08.06.2009, their application was accepted and compensation, as demanded by them, was awarded in their favour. It is grievance of the counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal did not issue any notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned Award, prayer is to quash the same in view of the above reason. When we confronted counsel for the petitioner, with the provisions of Section 54 of the Act that, the order under challenge is an appealable order, to say to the contrary, he placed reliance upon ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Babua Ram and others vs. State of U.P. and another, 1994 (7) JT 377. We have gone through the judgment referred to above and are of the opinion that it did not advance the cause of the petitioner. As per contention of the petitioner, the Award under challenge is an ex-parte Award. In that event, the petitioner has two remedies i.e. it can approach the Land Acquisition Tribunal to set aside the ex-parte Award and further it CWP No. 14338 of 2011 and connected writ petition 3 also has a right to file an appeal against the Award under challenge. These writ petitions are not maintainable, hence the same are dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE August 09, 2011 pj