C.W.P. No.12943 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.12943 of 2011 Date of Decision.22.07.2011 Sewa Singh son of S. Mehar Singh, resident of village Jheyurheri, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar, Mohali .....Petitioner Versus The Deputy Commissioner, SAS Nagar, Mohali and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks for quashing of a report given by the Additional Deputy Commissioner on a complaint, which was preferred against the petitioner by persons, who claimed that the compensation of acquisition of property had been wrongly secured by the petitioner when they had an interest in the property. The impugned report finds that the amount has been recovered by the petitioner wrongly and that action should be taken against him. The report recommends some criminal action against persons who were involved in the fraud. 2. For any dispute relating to the compensation that is required under the Land Acquisition Act, which involves an apportionment, the adjudication shall be undertaken only in a reference made under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. Land Acquisition Act contains provisions giving exclusive jurisdiction to the authority under the Act for deciding C.W.P. No.12943 of 2011 -2- the question of apportionment. Any person against whom action is taken will only approach the authority under Act and it shall not become possible for pursuing the remedy elsewhere. 3. Even a report or a formal observation of any authority that the amount has been wrongly collected by the petitioner, cannot take away his right or cause any prejudice to him and if any action were to be taken against him pursuant to the report, the petitioner shall always protect himself. The impugned recommendation is not in any way a final adjudication of rights of parties and if ever any criminal or civil action is taken against the petitioner, the petitioner will have a right to defend himself contending that the compensation, which was received by him, was in his own right and the observation made by the authority under this impugned letter will not bind him. 4. The writ petition is premature and it cannot affect the petitioner's remedy either in the civil or criminal court if ever any action is taken against her. 5. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 22, 2011 Pankaj*