COCP No.857 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. COCP No.857 of 2009 Date of Decision: 19.3.2010 Karnail Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs. Dalbir Singh Dhaliwal and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.C. Berry, Addl.A.G. Punjab for the respondents. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this petition is to punish the respondents for violation of the order dated 6.1.2009. The operative part of the order reads as follows :- “In the facts and circumstances of this case, we deem it just and appropriate to issue following directions :- (a) The Government by keeping in view the provisions of Section 48(1) of the Act,shall take a decision whether it wishes to continue with the acquisition or it does not wish to complete acquisition considering the same to be unnecessary. The provision of Section 48 of the Act reads thus :- COCP No.857 of 2009 2 “48. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but compensation to be awarded when not completed- (1) Except in the case provided for in Section 36, the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. (2) Whenever the Government withdraws from any such acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount of compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice or of any proceedings thereunder, and shall pay such amount to the person interested, together with all costs reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of the proceedings under this Act relating to the said land. (3) The provisions of Part III of this Act shall apply, so far as may be, to the determination of the compensation payable under this section.” A perusal of Section 48 of the Act shows that Government can withdraw from acquisition if it does not deem it necessary. As per the statement made before the learned Additional District Judge, decision by the Government has to be taken. The needful be done within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. COCP No.857 of 2009 3 (b) If the Government decides to withdraw from acquisition then land would revert back to its owners alongwith payment of compensation as envisaged by Section 48 of the Act. Let all necessary steps be taken within one month after the decision on the question of acquisition. (c ) If the Government decides to acquire land then a copy of the decision be sent to the petitioners under registered A.D. cover. The decision taken by the Government be not given effect till the expiry of one month from the date of delivery of copy thereof to the petitioners.” Counsel for the petitioners submits that though liberty was granted to the State Government to withdraw from the acquisition or to acquire the land, the order dated 31.3.2009 stating that the government does not want to withdraw from acquisition proceedings has been passed by the Executive Engineer, who is not the State Government. Counsel for the State of Punjab submits, on the basis of the additional affidavit dated 23.11.2009, filed by Sh.Suresh Kumar, IAS, Principal Secretary, Department of Irrigation, Punjab, Chandigarh, that the Government of Punjab has passed an order dated 31.8.2009 deciding to continue acquisition proceedings. It is further submitted that in this view of the matter, the respondents cannot be held guilty for violating the order dated 6.1.2009 or committing contempt of this court. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the order dated COCP No.857 of 2009 4 6.1.2009, passed by this court. In view of the order dated 31.8.2009 passed by the Principal Secretary, I fail to comprehend as to how and in what manner, the respondents have committed contempt. The argument that the Executive Engineer does not perform the functions of the State though correct, would not invite the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act or the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution, in view of the order dated 31.8.2009 passed by the State of Punjab, affirming the order passed by the Executive Engineer. In view of what has been stated herein above, the present petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to seek redressal of their grievance, if any, in appropriate proceedings. 19.3.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE