IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 6357 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : August 17, 2010. M/s Mor Poultries and another ...... Petitioners Versus. State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate, with, Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG Haryana, for respondents. JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL). This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash an Award dated 26.11.2009 (Annexure-P-16). As per documents on record, the petitioners’ land measuring 29 kanal was proposed to be acquired by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘the Act’) on 31.12.2008(Annexure- P-8). When that notification was issued, provisions of Section 17(2) Clause (c) of the Act were also invoked. The land was acquired to construct a railway line. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 04.02.2009 (Annexure-P-9). It is an admitted fact that the petitioners challenged the abovesaid notifications by filing CWP No. 4892 of 2009, which was disposed of by this Court on 27.03.2009, by passing the following order :- “This petition seek quashing of acquisition proceedings initiated vide Notification dated 31.12.2008 u/s 4 and followed by Notification dated 4.2.2009 u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Case of the petitioner is that Poultry breeding and hatchery operations are being run on the land. The turnover is Rs. 12 crores per year and though urgency clause has been invoked the C.W.P. No. 6357 of 2010 (O&M) -2- purpose is not such that hearing cannot be given to the petitioners. Having regard to the patent urgency of purpose of acquisition specified in the impugned notification i.e. laying up railway line, we are not inclined to quash impugned notification. However, we allow the petitioners to make representation to respondent No. 1-Principal Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, PWD (B&R) on or before 10.04.2009 who may take decision on the said representation on or before 24.4.2009. He may give personal hearing to the petitioners on 15.4.2009 at 11 a.m. or on any other date which may be suitable to him. If he is on election duty he will be at liberty to depute any other officer for hearing the petitioners. Further proceedings will abide by the result of the hearing. The petition is accordingly disposed of.” As per liberty given, the petitioners filed a representation before the Financial Commissioner on 06.04.2009, which was rejected by the officer concerned on 24.04.2009, relevant portion of the order reads thus :- “9. In view of the submission of the railways and the fact that the project is for overall development of community, the petitioner will have to lose land mentioned in the notification. It has already taken 4 years to start the project and any change in alignment can indeed put project in jeopardy. The petitioner can always get land in vicinity meeting all parameters. He can also lodge claim for compensation for loss of business. In view of invoking the emergency clause, he will get 60% solatium instead of normal 30% over and above the compensation decided by the Land Acquisition Collector. 10. In view of the above the representation of the petitioner is rejected qua shifting of the railway line. He is requested to approach the Land Acquisition Collector for proper compensation in the matter. A copy of this order is also sent to the Land Acquisition Collector for appropriate action in the matter.” C.W.P. No. 6357 of 2010 (O&M) -3- The petitioners’ request to shift the railway line was rejected. They were asked to approach the Land Acquisition Collector for payment of appropriate compensation. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector passed an Award on 26.11.2009 (Annexure-P-16), awarding compensation for the land at the rate of Rs. 8 lakhs per acre alongwith statutory benefits. Regarding fruit trees, tubewell, building and hatchery etc., following observation was made :- “FRUIT TREE, TUBEWELL, BUILDING AND HATCHERY There are some fruit tree, tube-wells, building under the area of acquired land and assessment of the above have not been received from the concerned department after receiving assessment compensation would be disbursed. There is a Hatchery under the area of acquired land for which a case for assessment and determination of compensation has been sent to ld. Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana PW (B&R) Department, Chandigarh vide memo No. 357/L.A. dated 25.7.09. As soon as the assessment work is over and compensation is determined by Department, the same will be disbursed among the real beneficiaries.” It is an admitted fact that so far as land of the petitioners is concerned, after passing of the Award, the petitioners had moved an application under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation, which is pending adjudication before the Land Acquisition Tribunal. The petitioners again came before this Court by filing a Civil Writ Petition, i.e., CWP No. 7745 of 2009, which was dismissed, vide Order dated 21.05.2009 (Annexure-P-14). When notice of motion was issued on 07.04.2010, following contention of counsel for the petitioners was noticed by this Court :- “ Learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to award dated 26.11.2009 (P-16) has drawn our attention to C.W.P. No. 6357 of 2010 (O&M) -4- the pronouncement made under sub head “Fruit Tree, Tubewell, Building and Hatchery”. He has argued that the essential function by the Collector on assessing compensation cannot be delegated to the department and award pronounced. In other words, the Collector cannot announce an award by giving powers to the department to determine the compensation and leave the assessment to any other agency.” In response thereto, reply has been filed by respondents wherein besides refuting claims of the petitioners, it has been stated that due process of assessment of other claims of the petitioners is in progress and as and when determination is made, supplementary award shall be passed by the Collector. Counsel for the respondents states before us that assessment of compensation is under process and the same will be completed within a period of six weeks and thereafter, the Collector shall pass supplementary award regarding claim of the petitioners. We make it very clear that as and when the Collector receives intimation regarding assessment of compensation, he shall issue a notice to the petitioners. The petitioners then shall raise claims regarding compensation of loss of business etc., before the Collector. The Collector shall then pass a speaking order and decide the claims of the petitioners. The petitioners shall then be at liberty, if not satisfied, to raise their grievance by filing an application under Section 18 of the Act. With above observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of. (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE August 17, 2010. sjks.