Civil Writ Petition No. 1513 of 1991 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1513 of 1991 Date of Decision : 6.7.2011 Jagdish Rai & others .......... Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. K.S. Rekhi, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. H.S. Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab. **** JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for issuance of writ of the mandamus to direct the respondents not to recover the amount from the petitioners, on the basis of notice Annexure P-2. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner's land was acquired vide award dated 27.6.1989. The Authorities served a notice Annexure P-2 upon the petitioners with a direction to deposit an amount of ` 1,04,585/- along with interest, alleged to have been paid in excess to them. At this stage this writ petition has been filed. It is contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the above notice has been issued without any jurisdiction. There is nothing on record to show as to on what basis it is said that an Civil Writ Petition No. 1513 of 1991 -2- excess amount has been paid to them. To claim relief reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Amrik Singh vs. The State of Punjab and another CWP No. 5124 of 1993 decided on 17.5.1994. In that case a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a similar situation and on noting that notice to recover the alleged excess amount was sent without detailing the basis for the same, it was observed as under :- “We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. In our opinion, it is not necessary to make an adjudication about the authority of the respondents to call upon the petitioner to deposit the amount which is alleged to have been paid in excess to him. However, what we find is that before initiating the process of recovery of the amount from the petitioner under the Land Revenue Act as arrears of land revenue, no action-oriented notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was never intimated that some amount has been paid to him in excess of what was due to him. He was never told that any mistake had been committed by the respondents in making payment of ` 3,55,440/- to him. Without taking such a step in accordance with the principles of natural justice, respondent No.2 or for that reasons any other officer, had no legal justification to issue notice to the petitioner calling upon him to deposit the amount specified in Annexure P-3. In our considered opinion, the action of respondent No.2 smacks of parent arbitrariness and on Civil Writ Petition No. 1513 of 1991 -3- that ground alone the impugned notice is liable to be quashed.” Notice was quashed by stating that opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioners therein before directing him to deposit the amount. Mr. Sidhu has failed to show that any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before issuance of notice Annexure P-2. Under the circumstances we allow this writ petition and direct that the notice Annexure P-2 be treated as a notice of demand. The petitioners be at liberty to file objection to the same. The Land Acquisition Collector shall then pass an order stating the facts necessitating recovery of alleged excess amount, if need be. The recovery be effected, in terms of the notice mentioned above, only after passing a detail order in that regard. (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE 6.7.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE