IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.978 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.1.2011 Surjit Kaur and others …..Petitioners versus The Amritsar Improvement Trust and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.V.K.Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioners Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) Civil Writ Petition No.978 of 2011 The petitioners were the owners of 44 kanal 12 marlas of land, situated in Sultan Wind, Urban Tehsil and district Amritsar. Above said land was acquired by respondent No.1 vide notification issued under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (in short, the Act) on 6.11.2000, followed by a notification issued under Section 42 of the Act on 29.11.2001. Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 28.11.2003. The petitioners were not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. They moved an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of the same. When despite many opportunities given, they failed to produce evidence in support of their claim, their evidence was closed vide order dated 24.2.2009 (P4). Thereafter, reference was declined by the Land Acquisition Tribunal on 24.2.2009, by a separate order (P5). Hence, this writ petition. It is contention of counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are poor persons, after their land having been acquired they are without any means of livelihood. Due to financial constraints and also on account of illiteracy, they failed to avail opportunities to produce evidence before the Court below. It is further stated that if an opportunity is not given, they will get a very meager compensation, for their valuable piece of land. It is further stated that in case an opportunity is given to produce evidence, they will complete it with promptitude, without any delay and further that no loss is going to be caused to the respondent No.1, as it will get an opportunity to rebut the evidence to be produced by them. It is a case of land acquisition, the petitioners may be remiss at the stage of producing evidence but an order closing their evidence appears 2 Civil Writ Petition No.978 of 2011 to be harsh, if opportunity is not given, probably they will not get proper compensation for their land. Under the circumstances, we allow this writ petition, quash the orders Annexures P4 and P5 and remit this matter to the Land Acquisition Tribunal, Amritsar (Constituted under the Punjab Town Improvement Act), with a direction that two effective opportunities within a span of two months be provided to the petitioners to adduce their evidence. If the petitioners fail to avail those opportunities and do not bring any evidence in the Court, this writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. At this stage, notice is not being issued as the matter is very small and if the respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure, unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings. This view finds support from the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No.9563 of 2002, (Batala Machine Tools Workshop Co-op vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur), rendered on June 27, 2002, in which it was held as under:- “We are conscious of the fact that the instant order is detrimental to the interest of the respondent-workman. We are also conscious of the fact that no notice has been given to the respondent-workman before the instant order has been passed. The reason for not issuing notice to the respondent-workman is to ensure that he does not have to incur unnecessary expenses in engaging counsel to appear on his behalf in this Court. The instant order by which the present petition is being disposed of fully protects the interest of the respondent-workman inasmuch as the amount determined by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur by its order dated 22.5.2002 has been required to be deposited by the petitioner-Management before the Labour Court/Labour- cum-Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur.” 3 Civil Writ Petition No.978 of 2011 Liberty is left with the respondents that if they feel aggrieved, they may move an application for recalling of this order. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 19.01.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 4