RSA No. 1436 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1436 of 2008 Date of Decision: 10.9.2009 State of Punjab and others ......Appellants Versus Sh. Dharam Singh .......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: Ms. Ambica Luthra, AAG, Punjab. Shri Jaideep Verma, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff claiming that he is owner in possession of the suit land was partly decreed. It is the case of the plaintiff-respondent that he is owner of the land measuring 2 kanals 18 marlas situated in village Kotla Nihang, District Rupnagar. The land of the plaintiff comprising in Khasra No. 35//1/2 and 71/3 has been acquired by the defendants for Satluj Yamuna Link (SYL) Project. It was averred that the suit land RSA No. 1436 of 2008 (2) comprising in Khasra No. 36//5/3/2 measuring 1 kanal 6 marlas, was never acquired, but the defendants under the guise of the acquisition proceedings aforesaid, started claim upon the suit land. Therefore, the said action of the defendants is illegal, null and void. In the written statement, it was stated that land measuring 5 marlas comprising in Khasra No. 36/5//3/1 was acquired for the construction of SYL Kanal vide Award No. 119/R-SYL dated 29.6.1986 leaving behind Khasra No. 36/5/3/2 measuring 2 kanals 8 marlas. Land measuring 2 kanals 2 marlas was acquired vide Award No. 368/R-SYL dated 12.5.1989 and the compensation of the acquired land was received by the plaintiff. In evidence, the defendants have produced Award No. 368/R-SYL dated 12.5.1989, Exhibit D.1, in respect of the alleged acquisition of the land measuring 2 kanals 2 marlas. Exhibit D.2 is the proof of payment of the compensation amount to the plaintiff. It was, thus, sought to be proved that the land measuring 2 kanals 2 marlas stands acquired. However, both the Courts have found that as per the Notification Exhibit DW1/2 only the land measuring 1 kanal 12 marlas was acquired and not 2 kanals 2 marlas, as asserted by the defendants. Thus, the plaintiff was found to be owner of the remaining land measuring 1 kanal 6 marlas. Such judgment and decree was affirmed in appeal as well. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced Award No. 368/R-SYL dated 12.5.1989; Notification No. 7376/SYL/Const./88 RSA No. 1436 of 2008 (3) under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1947 [ for short `the Act' ] and declaration No. 7957/SYL/Const./88 under Section 6 of the Act, published in the Punjab Govt. Gazette dated 18.10.1988 and 24.11.1988. A perusal of the said Notifications would show that the land which is subject matter of the aforesaid Notification measures only 1 kanal 12 marlas. In view of the said fact, only 1 kanal 12 marlas was acquired for which notification was published and Award announced. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and other, AIR 2000 SC 3737, to contend that in the notification intending to acquire land, the description of land is required to be given and even if the complete particulars are not given, it cannot be said that the land is not acquired. The said argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is misconceived. In the said case, the particulars of land, which was subject matter of acquisition were disclosed in the Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. It was the said land, which vested in the State in pursuance of the Award. Para No. 52 of the report is in respect of the objections filed by the land owners under Section 5-A of the Act and in relation to the words “particular land” appearing in Section 6 of the Act. In the said case, the particulars of land were found sufficient to identify the subject matter of the property acquired. In the present case, area of the land acquired has specifically been mentioned. It cannot be said that more than that land was still intended to be acquired. RSA No. 1436 of 2008 (4) Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 10-09-2009 ds