HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH *** LPA No. 260 OF 2008 Date of Decision: October 30, 2008. *** ARVIND NOHRIA VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS. *** CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur, CJ and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh. *** Present: Shri Vinod K.Kataria, Advocate, for the appellant. *** T.S.Thakur, CJ (Oral) This appeal arises out of an order dated August 14, 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 9059 of 1987 filed by the petitioner-appellant has been dismissed and the challenge to the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents repelled. The controversy arises in the following circumstances. Land measuring 3500 square yards situate within the Municipal Limits of Patiala and owned by the petitioner-appellant was notified for acquisition for the execution of a Scheme formulated under the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922 as early as on June 21, 1974. After hearing objections filed by the appellant, an area measuring 1000 square yards under use as a Petrol Pump, was deleted and an award determining compensation for the remainder of the land measuring 2500 square yards published on March 02, 1978. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Collector, the petitioner-appellant herein sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, for determination of true and fair amount of compensation payable to him. According to the -2- LPA No. 260 OF 2008 appellant, one of the grounds, urged in the said reference, is that the award made by the Collector does not determine and award any compensation to the appellant for the super structure allegedly standing over the land on the date of issue of preliminary notification. It is also common ground that the reference in question is still pending adjudication before the reference court. Shortly after the making of the reference, the petitioner- appellant appears to have filed a civil suit for injunction restraining the respondents from demolishing the structure standing over the land in question without paying the compensation for the said structure. This suit filed on February 06, 1979 was dismissed as withdrawn on July 28, 1980 on a statement made by counsel for the appellant that since the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was pending and the petitioner-appellant had been granted interim relief in the same, he did not wish to proceed with the suit which could be dismissed as withdrawn. Eight years after the dismissal of the suit and while the reference under Section 18 of the Act was still pending, the Improvement Trust passed resolution No. 454 of 27.01.1988 on two applications dated 4.9.1986 and 18.09.1986 filed by the appellant seeking exemption of the land under acquisition from the Scheme under Section 56 of the Act. The said resolution was then forwarded to the Government of Punjab for its approval. Upon consideration, the Government of Punjab passed an order on May 11, 2001, Annexure P-13, in exercise of its power under Section 72-E of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922 annulling the resolution passed by the Improvement Trust. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 9059 of 1987 inter alia for a writ of Certiorari quashing the said order as also the notification proposing to acquire the land in question. The said writ petition was heard and dismissed by Hemant Gupta, J as already noticed earlier. The present appeal assails the correctness of the -3- LPA No. 260 OF 2008 said order. We have heard Mr. Kataria, learned counsel for the appellant at considerable length and perused the record. The only ground which Mr. Kataria, pressed into service before us was that the Improvement Trust having passed a resolution on January 27, 1988 proposing to exempt the land owned by the petitioner from acquisition, the government was not justified in annulling the said resolution and declining to grant approval to the proposed exemption. In the circumstances the only question that falls for determination before us whether the government was justified in passing the impugned order annulling the resolution passed by the Improvement Trust. The learned Single Judge has rightly pointed out that the Scheme published under Section 42 of the Act afore-mentioned, is conclusive evidence in regard to the framing and sanctioning of the same. Any such Scheme can in terms of Section 43 of the Act, be altered by the Trust at any time with the prior approval of the government. No such prior approval was however obtained by the Trust at any time till the government passed the impugned order by which the resolution passed by the Improvement Trust proposing to exempt the land, was annulled in exercise of the powers vested in the government under Section 72-E of the Act. The availability of the said power and its plenitude is not in dispute. The appellant could assail the said decision only on the ground that the same suffered from perversity or irrationality of any kind. Nothing however was placed before the learned Single Judge nor even before us to show that the government was influenced by any irrelevant consideration or that the government had ignored any relevant consideration, while taking a decision on the subject. So long as the government took into consideration factors that were relevant and remained uninfluenced by any irrelevant factors, the view taken by the government shall have to be respected. That apart the -4- LPA No. 260 OF 2008 fact that the appellant had sought enhancement of the compensation determined by the Collector in proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the said reference was pending before the reference court concerned, in our opinion was sufficient to dis-entitle the petitioner to challenge the acquisition proceedings. The fact that the petitioner had filed a civil suit for injunction which was subsequently withdrawn by him unconditionally clearly show that the petitioner's challenge to the acquisition was appropriate even when there was super structure standing over the same had been given up. In the totality of the circumstances, therefore, the learned Single Judge was in our opinion justified in declining to exercise his extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the ongoing acquisition proceedings. The dismissal of the writ petition, however, would not prevent the appellant from pursuing the reference before the Civil Court concerned and seeking appropriate compensation for the land acquired from his ownership and possession. With the above observation, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the appellant has already deposited the development charges in terms of Annexures P-9 and P-10, the same may be directed to be refunded to the appellant with interest. There was no such prayer made in the writ petition nor there is any such prayer in the appeal filed before us. All the same, we see any reason why the Improvement Trust should not refund the amount deposited by the appellant pursuant to its resolution, in case a representation making a demand for such refund is made by the appellant to the competent authority. We, therefore, make it clear that in case such a request for the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant is received by the competent authority, the same shall be looked -5- LPA No. 260 OF 2008 into and appropriate redress is granted to the appellant. (T.S.Thakur) Chief Justice (Jasbir Singh) Judge October 30, 2008. Malik