IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 21814 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 06, 2009 Bimla Devi. … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Simsi Dhir, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No. 1 to 3. J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral) C.M. No.13093 of 2009 CM is allowed. Replication to the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. C.W.P. No. 21814 of 2008 The sequence of the facts relevant for the determination of the present controversy, wherein the solitary claim of the petitioner is for award of interest on account of delayed payment, commences with the purchase of two kanals of land by the petitioner, through a sale deed dated 07.02.1974. The land of the petitioner was sought to be acquired for setting up Industrial C.W.P. No. 21814 of 2008 Focal Point at Jaitu, District Faridkot. This object was sought to be achieved by the issuance of a notification dated 24.10.1975 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The pleadings of the present case reveal, that two kanals land purchased by the petitioner came to be acquired with the issuance of a declaration by State Government on 17.02.1976, through a notification under Section 6 of the Act. Undoubtedly, the petitioner was entitled to the payment of compensation, in lieu of the acquired land. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that she made a representation to the respondents on 10.09.2001. Despite the aforesaid representation, no compensation was released to her. Left with no other alternative, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 10828 of 2002. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 17.07.2002, wherein a direction was issued to the competent authority to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 10.09.2001; and to dispose of the same, by passing a well-reasoned speaking order. Consequent upon the disposal of Civil Writ Petition No. 10828 of 2002, the respondents decided the claim of the petitioner. Two communications were addressed to her, dated 09.09.2002 and 24.09.2002, requiring her to collect the compensation payable to her (in lieu of two kanals of land referred to above) on any working day. It is the case of the respondents, that the petitioner failed to accept the offer of compensation made by the respondents, whereas, the case of the petitioner is that no such offer was made to her. 2 C.W.P. No. 21814 of 2008 Since, no offer of compensation, was made to the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court by filing C.O.C.P. No. 1769 of 2002 alleging non-compliance of the order dated 17.07.2002 (vide which Civil Writ Petition No. 10828 of 2002 had been disposed of). It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner accepted compensation quantified as Rs.4791/- in lieu of the acquired land owned by her, during the course of the proceedings in C.O.C.P. No. 1769 of 2002. Although, the compensation in lieu of the acquired land was released to the petitioner, as has been indicated hereinabove, the petitioner alleges that she was deprived of interest thereon. Through the instant writ petition, the solitary claim of the petitioner is, for interest (on the compensation paid to her) from the date of acquisition of her land, till the date of release of the compensation. It is not a matter of dispute that the land owned by the petitioner was not reflected in her name in the revenue records, at the time when acquisition of the land was carried out in the years 1975/76. It may, therefore, have been justified for the respondents to deposit the aforesaid payment with the Assistant Treasury Officer, Gidderbaha, without releasing the same. In fact, this is exactly what had transpired. The case set up by the respondents in its pleadings is, that compensation for two kanals of land allegedly owned by the petitioner, was deposited with Assistant Treasury Officer, Gidderbaha. It would, therefore, not be possible for us to conclude that the respondents had wrongfully retained the money payable to the petitioner. Insofar as the issue of the interest is concerned, it would be pertinent to mention that the petitioner in her representation dated 3 C.W.P. No. 21814 of 2008 10.09.2001 sought compensation in lieu of the acquired land, but not interest payable thereon. Even in the representation dated 10.09.2001, the petitioner did not bring any material to the notice of the respondents, authenticating her ownership over the land under reference. Material depicting the ownership of the petitioner was placed on the record of Civil Writ Petition No. 10828 of 2002 for the first time. It is, therefore, natural to infer, that a justified claim for compensation was made by the petitioner for the first time in the pleadings of Civil Writ Petition No. 10828 of 2002. Immediately thereafter, two communications dated 09.09.2002 and 24.09.2002 were addressed to the petitioner inviting her to accept compensation in lieu of her land. Thereafter, when the petitioner approached this Court by filing C.O.C.P. No. 1769 of 2002, the compensation determined by the respondents was released to her (during the course of the hearing of the aforesaid contempt petition itself). It, therefore, emerges, that a direction was issued to the respondents on 17.07.2002 to consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of compensation in lieu of the acquired land, and that having taken a decision thereon, the respondents addressed communication dated 09.09.2002 (which undisputedly was received by the petitioner) offering her compensation in lieu of the acquired land. In other words, the offer to release the payment of compensation made, even before the expiry of period of two months allowed to the respondents to take a decision on the representation made by the petitioner. Obviously, the petitioner could not have been given more than what the petitioner claimed in her representation. The petitioner had claimed compensation in lieu of her land, but not interest. Accordingly, the petitioner was offered compensation in lieu of the acquired land. It is now 4 C.W.P. No. 21814 of 2008 her claim for the first time that although her land was acquired by the respondents in the years 1975/76, she has been released compensation in lieu thereof only in the year 2002, and that too, after the petitioner approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 10828 of 2002 and thereafter, by filing C.O.C.P. No. 1769 of 2002. Having gone through the sequence of facts narrated in the pleadings as have been recorded hereinabove, we fail to find any fault in the action of the respondents, inasmuch as, the petitioner never established her ownership rights in respect of the acquired land, even though, she had repeatedly made representations to the respondents claiming compensation. This issue is of significance as it is not a matter of dispute that at the time of the acquisition in the years 1975/76, the ownership of the land, as per the revenue records, was not reflected in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner for the first time substantiated her ownership rights (in the acquired land), in the pleadings of Civil Writ Petition No. 10828 of 2002. Thereafter, compensation has been released to the petitioner without any delay whatsoever. For the aforesaid reason, we are unable to accept the prayer made by the petitioner hereinabove for the release of the interest on account of delayed payment of compensation. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant writ petition is dismissed. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge August 06, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 5