Civil Revision No. 869 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 21644-CII of 2007 and Civil Revision No. 869 of 2007 Date of decision: 01.09.2009 Sat Narayan ....Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat, Village Nangal Kalan, Teh & Distt. Sonepat, and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Kawatra, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for respondent No. 2. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.10.2006, passed by Smt. Neerja Shekhar, IAS, Collector, Sonepat. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a title suit before the Collector, exercising the powers of civil Court, under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1962, as applicable to Haryana. In the suit, the plaintiff/petitioner moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the application, the learned Collector was pleased to pass the following order: - “In the aforesaid case stay orders dated 12.7.2006 had been passed by the Ld. Collector Sonepat regarding alienation and Civil Revision No. 869 of 2007 (O&M) -2- constructing roads etc. in the disputed land.” M/s Intime Promotors Private Limited, thereafter, moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 to be impleaded as a party to the suit, claiming that they were necessary party, as in the land in dispute, Sectors No. 58, 59, 60 and 64 were to be developed by the applicant. Prayer was also made for vacation of the stay order. The learned Collector did not find any merit in the application, moved by the applicant for being impleaded as a party, and dismissed the application. However, stay order granted had been vacated by recording as under: - “After hearing arguments of both the parties, and from perusal of the documents available on the file, it is found that after acquiring the land of Village Nangal Kalan the Govt. has handedover the same to Haryana Urban Development Authority for development. The HUDA Department has given this land to Intime Promotor Private Limited, 9, K.G. Road, Canaught Palace, New Delhi for its development within the stipulated period, and sanction has already been granted by the Govt. The counsel of the plaintiff has also accepted during the arguments that if the land has been acquired then they have no objection to withdraw the stay order. Therefore, the stay order dated 12.7.2006 is recalled. So far as the question of impleading Intime Promotors Pvt. Ltd. as party is concerned this suit had been filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 8 and proclamation also had taken place in this regard in the Village. On the other hand the purpose of filing of this application by the Intime Promotor Pvt. Ltd., was that the proceedings can be started to recall the stay order. There is no question of ownership of this company over the disputed land. Therefore, their application for impleading them as party is hereby dismissed.” Civil Revision No. 869 of 2007 (O&M) -3- Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contends, that the statement, if any, made by the counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner was that stay could be vacated only if the land had been acquired. However, without there being any material on record, showing that the land stood acquired by issuing notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, and further as to when any award was passed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, it was not open to the learned Collector to have vacated the stay order. On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's right to seek injunction would stand defeated, only after the acquisition proceedings are complete by announcement of award by the Land Acquisition Collector, but in absence of any material on record, showing issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and award under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, it was not open to the learned Collector to have vacated the stay order, that too on an application moved by the Intime Promotors Private Limited. For the reasons stated above, this revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Collector to adjudicate the matter and pass fresh order, after taking into consideration the fact as to whether the land stands acquired or is yet to be acquired. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 01, 2009 R.S.