CWP No. 3233 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3233 of 1989 Date of decision: September 22, 2011 Nirmal Rani ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Jashan Deep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? GURDEV SINGH, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner—Smt. Nirmla Rani, for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity—'the Act'). She pleaded therein that she purchased one plot measuring 1 bigha 5 biswas, bearing Khasra No. 4032 min situated in kasba Karnal, vide registered sale deed dated 1.9.1983, on the basis of which the mutation was sanctioned in her favour on 22.11.1983. Her father Gopal Dass got registered one society under the name “The Bajrang Gram CWP No. 3233 of 1989 2 Udyog Mandal Society” in the year 1981-1982, the main business of which was husking of paddy by means of a mini sheller. She gave the plot in dispute to it, after constructing a pucca boundary wall and a big room. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 22.2.1984, but no publication was made in the locality of the area. Thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 19.2.1987. As per the policy of respondent No.1—State, no such land on which the construction had already been raised before issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act could have been acquired. She made a number of representations to the authorities for releasing the property in dispute, but the same was not released from acquisition. Despite issuance of the notification under Section 6 of the Act, no award was passed within the statutory period of two years and she is still coming in possession of the land/property in dispute. No notice regarding passing of any such award was received by her. Similarly situated plots of other landowners have already been released from acquisition, whereas she has been discriminated against. 2. Written statement was filed by respondents No.1 and 2, after notice was issued. They denied the contentions made by the petitioner in the writ petition and, inter-alia, pleaded that at the time of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, the land in dispute was lying vacant and there was only a boundary wall with one gate. The petitioner, alongwith other landowners, filed their objections and they were given personal hearing. As the land of the petitioner was lying vacant, so it was decided to acquire the same and, accordingly, the notification under Section 6 of the Act was duly published in the official gazette. No such discrimination was made against the petitioner, as has been alleged in the CWP No. 3233 of 1989 3 petition. The award in respect of the land in dispute was made/announced on 16.2.1989 and it was intimated to the landowners that they could collect compensation of their land. The acquisition proceedings stand completed. No legal right of the petitioner has been infringed. 3. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, construction existed in the land in dispute and, as such, as per the policy of respondent No.1—State, the same could have been acquired. The same is, therefore, liable to be released from acquisition, even though the award has already been passed. 5. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that after passing of the award, the possession of the land in dispute was taken and the acquisition proceedings stand completed. Therefore, by virtue of Section 48 of the Act, the land cannot be released from acquisition. He also contended that at the time of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, this land was lying vacant and, as such, the same was not exempted from acquisition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to contend that taking of possession of the land in dispute is of no consequence for invoking the power under Section 48 of the Act as the dispossession was stayed by this Court during the pendency of the writ petition. 6. Except the pleadings of the petitioner, which have been duly controverted by the respondents, there is nothing on record for proving that the construction existed in the land in dispute at the time notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act. No replication was filed by the petitioner CWP No. 3233 of 1989 4 to the written statement for controverting the stand of the respondents that at the time of issuance of that notification the land was lying vacant. Therefore, it cannot be said that any such construction existed in the land in dispute at that time. Therefore, it cannot be said that the same could not have been acquired. 7. It is very much clear from the pleadings of the respondents that the award in respect of the land in dispute was announced on 16.2.1989. Copy of the report dated 16.2.1989 of the roznamcha waquiati has been placed on the record (Mark 'A'). As per that report, the possession of the land in dispute was taken after passing of the award by making a proclamation at the spot. After the award was passed and the possession was taken, the land in dispute vested in the State and it cannot be released from acquisition under Section 48 of the Act. In this regard, reference may be made to judgment rendered in National Thermal Power Corporation versus Mahesh Kumar Dutta 2010 (1) Apex Court Judgments 535. It was held therein that where possession of notified land has been taken, the State is denuded of its power to withdraw from acquisition in terms of Section 48 of the Act. 8. There can be exception where dispossession has been stayed by the Court. A perusal of the file shows that at no stage, dispossession of the petitioner was stayed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to rely upon copy of one letter dated 10.7.2001 issued by the Land Acquisition Collector, in support of his contention that her dispossession had been stayed by this Court. Any such letter cannot qualify the orders passed by this Court. As already noticed above, at no stage, dispossession of the petitioner was stayed. Therefore, in view of the well settled law, the CWP No. 3233 of 1989 5 land cannot be ordered to be released from acquisition after passing of the award and taking of possession thereafter in pursuance of that award. There is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (GURDEV SINGH ) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE September 22, 2011 prem