In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh C.W.P.No.12464 of 2007 Date of Decision:27-05-2008 Niranjan Singh ---Petitioner vs. State of Punjab and others, ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Suvir Sehgal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of direction to the respondents to initiate proceedings for acquiring land belonging to the petitioner by following due process of law envisaged by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act'), in respect of land already utilized by the respondents for construction of Cunnette-cum-Spill Bund opposite Wadhai Cheema post near Amritsar border area. Further prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents to assess, award compensation and to pay the same to the petitioner along with interest and also for assessing charges for utilization and occupation of the land for construction of canal and drainage since the year 1987 C.W.P.No.12464 of 2007 -2- has also been claimed. 2. It is conceded position that notification under Section 6 of the Act in the present case was issued on 13.11.2003(Annexure P-4) in respect of the same area of the land belonging to the petitioner. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioner has claimed compensation of land measuring 52 Kanla and 14 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 7//8-9-10-11-12-13/1-19/1- 20/1, 8//6. 3. During the course of the hearing of this petition, this Court had passed order for demarcation of the land on 2.5.2008 because the petitioner has placed reliance on the demarcation report dated 26.6.2007(P-10). Respondent-State did not accept the aforementioned report. Order dated 2.5.2008 issuing directions for fresh demarcation reads as under:- “Learned counsel for the the petitioner has placed reliance on the demarcation report dated 26.6.2007 (Annexure P-10) and argued that on directions of the Tehsildar, Ajnala, the demarcation was carried by the Naib Tehsildar and it has been found that out of the total land measuring 52 kanala 14 marlas belonging to the petitioner, 43 kanals has been utilized by the respondents. The petitioner is in possession of 9 kanals 14 marlas comprised in khasra No. 7//19/1 and 7//20/1. However, in paras 19 and 20 of the written statement, the respondents have claimed that they were not present at the time of demarcation. Accordingly, a request has been made for fresh demarcation of the land. In the presence of the parties. C.W.P.No.12464 of 2007 -3- Let the demarcation be undertaken by respondent No. 3 i.e. The Land Acquisition collector, Drainage Department Dholbaha Dam, Hoshiarpur by associating the petitioner. The demarcation report be placed on record within two weeks with a copy in advance to the counsel for the petitioner. List again on 22.5.2008.” 4. In pursuance to the directions issued on 2.5.2008, demarcation report Mark 'A' was placed on record. According to the demarcation report, respondents are stated to be in possession of 43 Kanals of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 7/8/1(1-0), 8/2 (7-0), 9/1(1-17), 9/2 (6-3), 10/1 (307) 10/2 (4- 13), 11/1(3-9), 11/2 (4-4), 12/1 (5-6), 12/2 (2-14), 13/1 (0-15), 7/13/1/2 (1- 9), 8/6/1 (0-15), 6/2(8-0). There is Gair Mumkin Rasta on the land measuring 1 kanal-7 marlas in Khasra No. 7/11/1(0-3), 12/1(1-4). The aforementioned Rasta measuring 1 kanal-7 marla is not a revenue Rasta and, therefore, it is deemed to be land belonging to the petitioner. It is, thus, clear that land in excess of the acquired land has been utilized by the respondents. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and direction is issued to the respondents to initiate the process of acquiring the excess land as per the provisions of the Act. As the possession has already been taken, it would be just and appropriate to pass an interim award within a period of six weeks from today and pay the aforementioned amount to the petitioner. The aforementioned direction has been issued in view of the statutory guidance available under Section 17 of the Act which provides C.W.P.No.12464 of 2005 -4- that once the possession of the land by invoking the urgency provision is taken then 80% of the compensation by way of draft award has to be paid to the land owners. The remaining amount shall be paid in the due course after the final award in accordance with law. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all the benefits including interest in accordance with law since his dispossession in the year 1987. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of this order only to the extent indicated above. 6. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) JUDGE May 27, 2008 paramjit