IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.6838 of 2007 Date of decision: 12.2.2009 Hari Singh and others. -----Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana & Others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Palika Monga, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. ----- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks a direction for payment of compensation to the proprietors of the Village and for restraining the State from allowing the Gram Panchayat to withdraw the interest components of the compensation. C.W.P. No.6838 of 2007 2. Case of the petitioners is that common land has been acquired which represented land of the proprietors in pursuance of notification dated 23.1.2004 under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, ‘the Act’). Award dated 21.1.2006 determining market value of the said land was announced and compensation for the land in dispute was credited to the account of the panchayat as a fixed deposit. As per scheme of consolidation, the land belonged to the proprietors and was not meant for common use. 3. In the reply filed by the Panchayat, it has been stated that in view of judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Jai Singh v. State of Haryana, 2003(2) RCR (Civil) 578, the land vested in the panchayat or the State Government irrespective of entry to the effect “Jumla Mustarka Malkans Wa digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi Khjewat”. The petitioners filed a replication stating that the judgment of the Full bench was distinguishable as land was never reserved for common purposes. 2 C.W.P. No.6838 of 2007 4. In the reply by respondent No.2, Haryana Urban development Authority, it has been stated that the dispute raised in the petition can be best adjudicated upon in a reference under section 30 of the Act. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the State raises preliminary objection that the question of apportionment of compensation has to be gone into in appropriate reference under Section 30 of the Act. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to seek reference with further direction that such reference may not be treated to be barred by limitation. 8. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the course suggested. 9. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. It is made clear that if the petitioners seek reference within one month from today, the same will not be 3 C.W.P. No.6838 of 2007 dismissed only on the ground of limitation. We further direct that the amount in dispute will be kept in deposit and if any payment is made to the panchayat, the same may be kept in a separate deposit by the panchayat so that the party held entitled to the amount, may get the same as per directions in the award which may be rendered on a reference. 10. The petition is disposed of. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE February 12, 2009 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) Ashwani/gs JUDGE 4