IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. Nos.3327 of 1987 Date of decision: 3.2.2009 Kartar Singh and others. -----Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and another. -----Respondents AND C.W.P. Nos.3328 of 1987 Prem Chand and others. -----Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Palika Monga, AAG, Haryana. ----- ORDER: C.W.P. Nos.3327 & 3328 of 1987 1. This order will dispose of CWP Nos.3327 and 3328 of 1987 as both the petitions involve common question of validity of acquisition, vide notification dated 6.5.1982, Annexure P-1, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) and notification dated 2.5.1985 under Section 6 of the Act. 2. Case of the petitioners is that prior to present acquisition, proceedings for acquisition of land of the petitioners were initiated on 6.10.1981. On CWP No.510 of 1982 having been filed by Zile Singh etc., acquisition proceedings were withdrawn. Fresh proceedings were commenced on May 7, 1982. Though a report was submitted by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Sonepat that alternative land was available, land has been acquired ignoring the said report and the award was required to be made on or before 1.5.1987, but no such award was made. The petitioners were required to file their claims on or before 29.4.1987 which shows that the award could not have been made by 1.5.1987. The entry, of the award having been made, on 2.5.1987 was recorded by ante dating the award as of 1.5.1987. Application for inspection was filed, but the award was not made available. 3. In the reply filed, stand of the respondents is that the land has been acquired for public purpose specified in impugned notifications and award was duly made on 1.5.1987, which was within limitation. Compensation was also offered and possession taken. Objections of the petitioners were duly considered by the appropriate authority while issuing notification under Section 6 of the Act. Making 2 C.W.P. Nos.3327 & 3328 of 1987 of the award was duly announced in the area by beating of drum on 1.5.1987. Entry was also made in the Roznamcha of Halqa Patwari on the same date. As regards application for inspection, it is stated that on 26.5.1987, an application was made but at that time, the staff was not available, but later on, the petitioners never came for inspection. 4. At the admission stage, record was not produced on behalf of the State. The petition was admitted. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. As per proceedings of the Lok Adalat, record was duly produced on 22.3.2001. A certified copy thereof is on record. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Lok Adalat observed that the award had been duly made within time. The matter was, however, sent back for decision by this Court in absence of any consensus. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Only contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that earlier acquisition proceedings having been dropped and award not having been made by the prescribed date, acquisition proceedings are illegal 7. We do not find any merit in this contention. 8. Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides that the Court may presume that official acts have been regularly performed. Merely because the petitioners were required to file claims upto 29.4.1987, cannot be a ground for presuming that award could not have been made on 1.5.1987, as claimed by the respondents. It was 3 C.W.P. Nos.3327 & 3328 of 1987 also submitted that there is no record to show that money had been withdrawn for offering the same to the petitioners which contention was recorded in order of this Court dated 21.9.1987. There is no reason to disbelieve the averment in the written statement on behalf of the State that money was available and was duly offered to the petitioners on the date of making of the award itself. Mere fact that earlier acquisition proceedings were dropped is not shown to be a bar to fresh acquisition proceedings being initiated for a public purpose. 9. There is, thus, no merit in the writ petitions. The same are dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE February 03, 2009 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ashwani JUDGE 4