LPA No.1972 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1972 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 20, 2011 Beas Dam Oustees Society, Punjab (Regd.),Rakree, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur .....APPELLANT Versus State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH --- Present: Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate, for the appellant. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the judgment dated May 05, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.604 of 2009) filed by the appellant-Society for issuing directions to the respondents to rehabilitate the Beas Dam Oustees of Punjab in view of the decision taken in the meeting dated 18.08.1966 by the Beas Rehabilitation Committee, has been dismissed while observing that the writ petition filed by some of the oustees of Punjab raising the similar issue, was dismissed in the year 1993. Though this appeal is barred by limitation as along with the appeal the appellant has filed an application (CM No.5261 of 2011) for condonation of 14 days of delay in filing the appeal, however, without LPA No.1972 of 2011 (O&M) -2- taking the said delay into consideration, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merits and gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant-Society claims to be the Society of the oustees whose land was acquired by the Punjab Government vide notification dated 10.6.1961 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for developing a colony for the Beas Dam Project. It is undisputed position that the possession of the said land was taken and the compensation was paid to the land owners. Prior to the acquisition of the land of the members of the appellant-Society, a big chunk of land of many villages of Himachal Pradesh, was also acquired for the construction of Pong Dam Reservoir. In the year 1966 in the third meeting of the Beas Rehabilitation Committee, a decision was taken that an area of 3.25 acres of land in Rajasthan be allotted to the oustees of Himachal Pradesh whose land was acquired for the Pong Dam Reservoir. Subsequently a controversy arose whether under the aforesaid Oustees Rehabilitation Scheme only the people affected due to construction of Pong Dam Reservoir whose villages had submerged in Pong Dam Reservoir shall be allotted the land in Rajasthan or the other persons whose land was acquired for establishing the town/colony, were also to be rehabilitated in Rajasthan. In this regard vide Award dated 3.7.1972 given by the Central Government a decision was taken that the people affected due to Pong Dam Reservoir only shall be eligible for allotment of land in Rajasthan under the said Scheme whose villages had submerged in Pong Dam Reservoir. In the said Award it was mentioned that the owners whose land was acquired outside the Reservoir area would not be eligible for LPA No.1972 of 2011 (O&M) -3- allotment of land in Rajasthan. Therefore, in view of the said decision no land was allotted to the land owners of the Punjab State in Rajasthan whose land was acquired for developing a colony for the Beas Dam Project. It is further undisputed position that certain landowners whose land was acquired for construction of a colony for the Beas Dam Project filed CWP No.5192 of 1992 titled `Kuldeep Singh etc. Versus State of Punjab and others' and CWP No.6408 of 1992 titled `Hoshiar Singh Versus State of Punjab and others' for seeking directions to the Government to allot land to them under the Rehabilitation Scheme in Rajasthan. It was also prayed that the land which was acquired and was not utilized by the Pong Dam authorities be transferred back to them. Those writ petitions were dismissed by this Court while making the following observations:- “Learned counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions:- (i) Some of the landowners whose land had been acquired were allotted land in Rajasthan and similar promise was made to the petitioners and thus they are entitled to the same concession as was given to the landowners similarly situated; and (ii) Part of the disputed land is not being utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired and the same should be transferred back to them. Both these submissions are devoid of any merit. The petitioners have not brought any material on record from which it could be inferred that a promise was made to the landowners whose land was acquired that they would be allotted land in Rajasthan. If any such promise was made at the time of acquisition of land in 1961, the same cannot be allowed to be enforced after LPA No.1972 of 2011 (O&M) -4- the expiry of 32 years. The petitioners have no right, much less legal right, on the land which had been validly acquired and for which compensation had been paid to them. The acquisition authorities can utilize the land for any purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in these writ petitions. The same are accordingly dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.” Again in the year 1994, 22 other similarly situated persons, who were not parties to the earlier writ petitions, filed CWP No.6830 of 1994 titled `Ishwar Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and others' and this Court vide order dated 24.10.1994 dismissed the same being barred by the principle of res-judicata. Again in the year 2007 some of the oustees filed CWP No.5298 of 2007 titled `Satnam Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and others' which was disposed of by this Court on 19.11.2007 by passing the following order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the land was acquired by the State for B.B.M.B., the land has been transferred to the States of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan through B.B.M.B., as per Annexure R-5/2 herein. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the representation submitted to the Chief Minister, Punjab is still pending. We do not find any scope for interference in this background as now the land has been further transferred by B.B.M.B., however, we do not find any legal impediment in issuing a direction to the State to decide the representation at the earliest in accordance with law after hearing the parties including the B.B.M.B. Disposed of.” LPA No.1972 of 2011 (O&M) -5- In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, the Government of Punjab heard the oustees and rejected their claim vide order dated 12.12.2008 while coming to the conclusion that the land was acquiired in the year 1961 and the compensation was paid, and such land cannot be returned back to the landowners merely because some part of it remained unutilized. After the said decision, the oustees, whose claim was earlier rejected by this Court in various writ petitions, filed the instant petition in the name of the Beas Dam Oustees Society. During the course of arguments, it has been admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the oustees of the colony are the members of the appellant-Society. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-Society after coming to the conclusion that the similar writ petitions claiming the similar relief have already been dismissed in the year 1993 after noticing that the land of the appellant-Society was acquired more than 30 years back for which compensation had already been paid to them. In our opinion, the oustees, whose land was acquired in the year 1961 and were paid their due compensation, have been filing petitions one after the other after changing the name, which is misuse of the process of law. The matter regarding allotment of alternative land to the oustees was referred to Cabinet Secretary to Government of India for adjudication. Vide Award dated 3.7.1972 made by the Central Government a decision was taken that the people affected due to Pong Dam Reservoir only shall be eligible for allotment of land in Rajasthan under the Scheme, as a result of which oustees of villages of Himachal Pradesh submerged in Pong Dam Reservoir LPA No.1972 of 2011 (O&M) -6- were made eligible for allotment of land in Rajasthan. In the said Award it was specifically mentioned that the owners whose land was acquired outside the Reservoir area would not be eligible for allotment of land in Rajasthan. In view of the said decision, no land was allotted to the land owners of the Punjab State in Rajasthan whose land was acquired for developing a colony for the Beas Dam Project. Undisputedly, the oustees of the land of the colony never challenged the said Award made by the Central Government. Thus long back a decision was taken that the oustees of land acquired for colony were not entitled to be rehabilitated under the Scheme in Rajasthan but time and again they are agitating this issue and in spite of dismissal of their writ petitions in the year 1993, the instant appeal has been filed in the garb of the appellant-Society. In view of the aforesaid facts, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE October 20, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) vkg JUDGE