IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.5403 of 2009 Date of decision: 5.5.2009 M.S.Kang -----Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. M.S.Kang, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl.A.G.Punjab for the State. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.: 1. This petition seeks quashing of award dated 18.11.2008, Annexure P.5, determining compensation of land of the petitioner under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, ‘the Act’). 2. Case of the petitioner is that his land has been acquired in pursuance of notifications dated 31.12.2004 under section 4 and dated 30.5.2005 under section 6 of the Act. In some connected writ petitions, stay of dispossession was granted and the same was vacated after about six months. However, award was made on 18.11.2008 which was beyond three years from the last date of publication and even if the period of stay is excluded, award was hit by Section 11-A of the Act. CWP No.5403 of 2009 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Ramalinga Thevar v. State of Tamilnadu 2000(4) SCC 322, wherein the question for consideration was whether stay of dispossession was to be taken into account for purposes of explanation to Section 11-A of the Act. While holding that period of stay of dispossession was also to be taken into account, reference was made to earlier judgment of Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yusufbhai Noormohmad Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat 1991(4) SCC 531, taking the view that for interpretation of explanation, invocation of urgency clause did not make any difference. 4. We do not find any relevance of the said judgment for deciding the question of application of Section 11-A of the Act, in view of observations of three Hon’ble Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satendra Prasad Jain and others v. State of UP and others AIR 1993 SC 2517 holding that where urgency provisions are invoked, Section 11-A of the Act could not apply, as possession could be taken before the award and land vested in the State on payment of compensation. It was also observed that mere fact that compensation was not actually paid to the land owners, did not make any difference. 5. Reliance has also been placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kunwar Pal Singh (Dead) by LRs. v. State of U.P. & others AIR 2007 SC 1675, wherein after expiry 2 CWP No.5403 of 2009 of period of two years, it was held that award could not be made in view of provisions of Section 11-A of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that reference to facts of that case noted in para 1, shows that urgency provision was invoked. There is, however, nothing to show that compensation had been paid or deposited and land had been vested in the State. There is also no discussion in the said judgment that even if urgency provision was invoked, the proceedings for acquisition will lapse on expiry of period stipulated under Section 11-A of the Act. The said judgment is, thus, distinguishable. 6. Shri Kang also submitted that in view of language of Section 11-A of the Act, the proceedings should be treated to have lapsed. This is the precise submission which was raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and was rejected, having regard to the scheme providing for vesting of the land in the State on payment of 80% compensation under Section 17(3-A) of the Act, in Satender Prasad Jain (supra). This submission cannot, thus, be accepted. 7. Learned counsel for the State points out that this was a case of urgency as mentioned in the impugned notifications Annexures P.1 and P.2 and in such a case, provisions of Section 11-A of the Act were not applicable, as compensation had been duly paid even before making the award on which the land vested in the State. He points out that 80% of compensation had 3 CWP No.5403 of 2009 already been paid prior to 29.5.2006 which was noticed in the judgment of this Court, Annexure P.4. 8. In Satendra Prasad Jain (supra), wherein it was held as under:- “Ordinarily, the Government can take possession of the land proposed to be acquired only after an award of compensation in respect thereof has been made under section 11. Upon the taking of possession, the land vested in the Government, that is to say, the owner of the land loses to the Government the title to it. This is what section 16 states. The provision of section 11-A are intended to benefit the land owner and ensure that the award is made within a period of two years from the date of the section 6 declaration. In the ordinary case, therefore, when Government fails to make an award within two years of the declaration under section 6, the land ahs still not vested in the Government and its title remains with the owner, the acquisition proceedings are still pending, and by virtue of the provisions of section 11- A, lapse. When Section 17(1) is applied by reason of urgency, Government takes possession of the land prior to the making of the award under section 11 and thereupon the owner is divested of the title to the land which is vested in the Government. Section 17(1) states so in unmistakable terms. Clearly, Section 11- A call have no application to cases acquisition under section 17, because the lands have already vested in the Government and there is no provision in the said Act by which land statutorily vested in the Government can revert to the woner.” (emphasis supplied). 4 CWP No.5403 of 2009 The said view has been reiterated, inter-alia, in Awadh Bihari Yadav and others v. The State of Bihar and others, AIR 1996 SC 122. 9. In view of above, we do not find any ground to quash the impugned notifications and the award. 10. Mr. Kang says that even though compensation may have been deposited, payment was not made, inspite of efforts of the petitioner. 11. We find merit in this submission. Accordingly, while rejecting challenge to acquisition proceedings, we direct that compensation due be paid to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. . 12. The petition is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE May 5, 2009 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) ‘gs/ashwani JUDGE 5