IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 8696 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 15.12.2009 Jagan Nath .... PETITIONERS Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Palika Monga, D.A.G., Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent No.4. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The dispute in this writ petition is regarding 2 Marlas (60 square yards) of land, comprised in Rectangle No. 25, Khasra No. 45/5. The petitioner, who claims to have purchased this land vide registered sale deed dated 8.7.1983 for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/- from the LR of one Pritam Singh, who was original owner of this land, has filed the instant petition challenging the acquisition of the aforesaid land by the State of Haryana vide Award dated 17.9.1986, which was passed in pursuance of the notifications dated 6.6.1983 and 27.6.1984, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of CWP No. 8696 of 2009 -2- the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Some of the admitted facts are that vide notification dated 6.8.1983 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the State of Haryana proposed to acquire 200.71 acres of land situated in village Maheshpur, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala, for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilization of land as residential area under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as `the HUDA Act'). Undisputedly, in the said notification, Khasra No.45/5 did not find mention, whereas the other adjoining khasra numbers i.e. 45/1, 45/2, 45/3, 45/4, 45/6, 45/7, 45/8, 45/9, 45/10, 45/11, 45/12, 45/13, 45/14, 45/15, owned by Pritam Singh, were mentioned in the notification. It appears that due to some clerical mistake, the said khasra number was not mentioned in the notification. After issuance of the said notification, the petitioner had purchased 2 Marlas land of Khasra No. 45/5 vide registered sale deed dated 8.7.1983 for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/- from the legal heir of Pritam Singh. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner did not get the mutation sanctioned regarding purchase of this land and did not get his name entered in the revenue record. He did not make any application to the Land Acquisition Collector informing the factum of the purchase of this land from the legal heir of Pritam Singh. It is further admitted position that vide notification dated 27.6.1984, the State Government issued notification under Section 6 of the Act. Admittedly in the said notification, khasra No. 45/5 was mentioned. In pursuance of the said notification, after hearing the CWP No. 8696 of 2009 -3- interested persons, the Land Acquisition Collector announced the award on 17.9.1986 for acquired land including khasra No. 45/5, and in pursuance thereof, possession of the acquired land was taken. It is further undisputed position that the land owners, including the LRs of Pritam Singh, had received the amount of compensation regarding the acquired land, including the land pertaining to khasra No. 45/5. They further sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Reference Court vide judgment dated 18.5.1991 enhanced the compensation. The appeal filed by the LRs of Pritam Singh against the said judgment was further allowed by this Court. Undisputedly, the LRs of Pritam Singh had withdrawn the enhanced compensation of their acquired land, including the land comprised in khasra No. 45/5. In the year 1994, when the HUDA issued a notice for eviction of the petitioner, he filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the HUDA from interfering in his peaceful possession over the land and the shed constructed over khasra Nos. 45/4 and 45/5, which according to him had been purchased by him vide two separate sale deeds dated 8.7.1983. Copy of the plaint is Annexure R-1. It is admitted position that the said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.1999, when the plaintiff could not lead any evidence in support of his case. After 10 years of the said judgment, the petitioner has filed the instant petition, challenging the aforesaid acquisition, on the ground that when the land comprised in khasra No. 45/5, which was purchased by the CWP No. 8696 of 2009 -4- petitioner, was not notified in the notification under Section 4 of the Act, then the subsequent proceedings including the announcement of the award are null and void, as the petitioner has been deprived of his valuable right to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings and the award are liable to be quashed,. In the petition, the petitioner has explained the delay, while alleging that he came to know about the notification under Section 6 of the Act pertaining to his land, as well as the award pronounced on 17.9.1986, only after receiving a notice dated 2.8.2009 issued under Section 18 (1) (B) of the HUDA Act, therefore, he has filed the instant petition after a long delay. It is mentioned here that in the petition, the petitioner has not disclosed the factum of filing the civil suit by him in the year 1994 and dismissal of the same in the year 1999. He has also not disclosed that another suit filed by him (copy of plaint Annexure R-3) pertaining to this land, is still pending before the Civil Court at Panchkula. In the written statement, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches and the conduct of the petitioner as well as his vendor. It has been further stated that since the petitioner had purchased 2 Marlas of land comprised in khasra No. 45/5 after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, therefore, he was not legally entitled to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act and to challenge the acquisition proceedings. It has been stated that the previous owner, whose other land was also acquired, had withdrawn compensation, CWP No. 8696 of 2009 -5- including the compensation awarded for the land in question. It has also been stated in the written statement that an amount of Rs. 23,800/- pertaining to the land in question has been recovered from the legal heirs of Pritam Singh (which includes the amount of interest and enhanced amount of compensation) and the same is lying with the Land Acquisition Collector, who has requested the petitioner to withdraw the said amount. (During the course of arguments, when an offer was made to the petitioner to withdraw the said amount, he refused to withdraw the same). Learned counsel for the respondents have also pointed out that the entire acquired land has been utilized. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the petition as well as the written statement and other documents annexed therewith, we do not find any ground to entertain this petition at this belated stage and to interfere in the acquisition proceedings, which have been completed in the year 1986. A perusal of the sale deed, which has been annexed as Annexure P-1, shows that the petitioner alleges to have purchased 2 Marlas of land comprised in Khasra No. 45/5 from Naurang Singh (legal heir of Pritam Singh) for a consideration of Rs.2,000/-. The petitioner had purchased 2/153 share, which comes only to 2 Marlas, with the averment that possession of the land will be handed over to the purchaser on partition of the land. Undisputedly, when the sale deed was executed, notification under Section 4 of the Act pertaining to the said village had already been issued, in which the other adjoining khasra CWP No. 8696 of 2009 -6- numbers of the same land owners/vendors were notified. On the same day, the petitioner alleged to have purchased another 2 Marlas of land comprised in khasra No. 45/4 from Sampuran Singh, the other legal heir of Pritam Singh. Undisputedly, the said khasra number was mentioned in notification under Section 4 of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the averment made by the petitioner that when he purchased the land and subsequent thereto, he was not aware of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and the award, cannot be accepted. In spite of the fact that vide the aforesaid two sale deeds, the petitioner had purchased only 126 square yards of land, he had illegally taken possession of near about 143 square yards of land, for which the HUDA issued notice of eviction to him. In the year 1994, the petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction caliming himself to be owner in possession of the disputed land on the basis of the aforesaid sale deeds. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.1999, when the petitioner did not lead any evidence and his evidence was closed under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC. The said judgment and decree will operate as res judicata against the petitioner. In spite of the fact that in the said suit, in the year 1994-95, the petitioner came to know that the land in dispute was acquired by the State Government and in that regard an award was announced, he did not challenge the impugned notifications as well as the award and remained silent for more than 10 years. When the HUDA issued notice under Section 18 (1) (B) of the HUDA Act, for eviction of the petitioner, he challenged the CWP No. 8696 of 2009 -7- said notice by filing a suit, which is still pending. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant petition challenging the impugned notifications and the award. In spite of having the knowledge of acquisition of the land in question, the petitioner did not take any step to prevent the previous land owner from receiving the compensation of the land in question. Though it is a fact that khasra number 45/5 did not find mention in the notification under Section 4 of the Act, but all the adjoining khasra numbers owned by the same land owner, were mentioned in the said notification. In order to take the benefit of a clerical mistake, which took place in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, the petitioner purchased the said small piece of land for a meager consideration of Rs. 2,000/- and then remained silent for years. He did not take any step to get himself recorded as owner in the revenue record. By his silent act, he permitted the previous owner to withdraw the amount of compensation with regard to the land in question. All this conduct of the petitioner, in our opinion, clearly debars him from challenging the acquisition at this highly unexplained belated stage. He cannot take benefit of a factual mistake, which has taken place in the notification under Section 4 of the Act, particularly when the entire sector has been developed, after utilizing the acquired land. During the course of hearing, an offer was made to the petitioner to withdraw the amount of compensation, which is lying with the Land Acquisition Collector, after its recovery from the previous owner. He was offered for some special costs, but the learned counsel for the petitioner refused to accept the same and he CWP No. 8696 of 2009 -8- prayed that the acquisition qua the land in question be quashed. After considering the aforesaid factual position and the conduct of the petitioner and the fact that he had concealed the factum of dismissal of his earlier suit, we are not inclined to quash the aforesaid acquisition of the land in question at this unexplained belated stage. Dismissed. However, it will be open for the petitioner to withdraw the compensation with regard to the land in question, which is lying with the Land Acquisition Collector. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 15, 2009 ( MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR ) ndj JUDGE