R.S.A.No.652 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.652 of 2009 Date of Decision: October 06, 2009 Tarsem Kumar and others ...Appellants Versus Banarsi Dass Saini and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate, for the appellants. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 5 from taking forcible possession and making any construction on land measuring 3 Kanals 13 Marlas, comprising in khasra No.133 as per jamabandi for the year 1990-91 of Village Basti Guzan, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, was dismissed. Khasra No.133 measures 13 Kanals 12 Marlas. 9 Kanals and 19 Marlas out of the said khasra number was acquired by Jalandhar Improvement Trust vide notification dated 3.9.1974 for implementation of 143.56 acres scheme known as 'J.P.Nagar Scheme'. The award of acquisition of land was announced on 21.12.1978. One Amar Nath, who allegedly purchased the land alongwith R.S.A.No.652 of 2009 2 the plaintiffs vide sale deed dated 8.5.1975 sought exemption of land purchased by him on the ground that he has already raised construction. Vide notification dated 21.1.1993, land measuring 3 Kanals 13 Marlas owned by Amar Nath was exempted from acquisition. The plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for mandatory injunction in the year 1990 for allotment of one plot measuring 1 Kanal in view of acquisition of land by the Trust as a local displaced person. The said suit was dismissed on 13.3.1992 vide judgment and decree Exs.D-12/A and D-12/B and it was held that the plaintiff was not a local displaced person, as he has purchased the property after the notification of the scheme on 3.9.1974. In appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the plaintiff was permitted to withdraw his suit on 4.1.1994 vide judgment and decree Exs.P-21 and P-21, as in the meantime land measuring 3 Kanals 13 Marlas was exempted from acquisition. The plaintiff withdrew the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on same cause of action, which may include the challenge to the notification dated 21.1.1993 or its vires. After the decision of the first suit on 13.3.1992, the plaintiff filed a suit for possession and for declaration. Similar suits were filed by Tarsem Kumar and Yog Raj. Said suits were dismissed by the learned trial Court on 5.3.2005. A copy of the said judgment is Ex.DX. It was held that the possession of the land has been purportedly taken by the Improvement Trust on 21.1.1983. Though the possession has not been taken in exercise of the powers conferred on the Authority, but that will not confer any right in the plaintiff to claim possession in the aforesaid suit. It was also held that even if the compensation has not been disbursed, the acquisition proceedings cannot be held to be vitiated, but R.S.A.No.652 of 2009 3 the land-owners are entitled to get interest as per the provisions of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It has been noticed that earlier the plaintiff had moved an application on 12.3.1979 for referring the matter to the Land Acquisition Collector for enhancement of compensation and also sought allotment of plot as Local Displaced Person. Consequently, the decree for mandatory injunction directing the Improvement Trust to make payment of compensation to the plaintiff as per their entitlement under award dated 21.12.1978 alongwith interest was granted in favour of the plaintiff. The appeal against the said judgment and decree has been dismissed on 30.5.2005. The present suit for injunction was filed on 21.8.1993, which has been dismissed by the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below is not sustainable as the plaintiff is co-sharer alongwith Amar Nath, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of exemption vide notification dated 21.1.1993. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is not sustainable. The plaintiff has claimed decree for permanent injunction on the averments that he is in possession of the same. However, the findings recorded in the previous suit concluded vide judgment and decree Ex.DX and the appeal therefrom shows that the land vests with the Improvement Trust after announcement of the award. The Improvement Trust has been directed to pay compensation alongwith interest. With the said finding, having attained finality, the plaintiff cannot claim to be in possession over the land, which stands acquired and vests with the Improvement Trust. R.S.A.No.652 of 2009 4 In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration of this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. October 06, 2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE