IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 16881 of 2003 Date of Decision: April 21, 2010 Pyar Kaur and another …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Jasmer Singh Verka, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks a direction to the respondents to acquire the land of the petitioners under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and to pay them compensation. The case of the petitioners is that they are owners of the land possession of which was taken for raising bandhs (dams) for diverting the flow of water of river Ravi, way back in the year 1987-88. However, no proceedings for acquisition were taken nor any compensation paid. The petitioners have also pleaded that one of the co-sharers, namely, Shri Iqbal Singh filed CWP No. 5946 of 1997, on which, he was paid compensation of Rs. 1,34,268/- in respect of 2.51 acres of land. He was also granted liberty to file reference under Section 18 of the Act even without there having been any proceedings for acquisition. In the reply filed by the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, CWP No. 16881 of 2003 Gurdaspur on behalf of the respondents, it has been denied that possession of the land of the petitioners was ever taken. Since it was not clear whether possession of the land owned by the petitioners has ever been taken by the respondent State or the same was available with the petitioners, this Court, vide order dated 6.5.2009, directed the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, to ascertain the status of the land of the petitioners and to submit a report within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Liberty was also granted to the petitioners to appear in person or through their counsel before the Collector on 29.5.2009 to present their view point. The Collector was also required to ascertain the factual aspect of the matter at his own level and to give his report. The Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, submitted his status report dated 22.8.2009 (A-1). The only conclusion reached by the Deputy Commissioner in his report is that Pyar Kaur-petitioner No. 1 was not in possession of the land when it was used by the Irrigation Department and later on when four kanals of land comprised in Khasra No. 650 came to her possession, the department stopped using the land. In this manner, it has come on record that the respondent department stopped using the land after finalization of the partition proceedings. However, the fact remains that the land was used for a period of time. Since the status report dated 22.8.2009 (A-1) submitted by the Deputy Commissioner was totally vague, we directed him vide order dated 8.2.2010 to file a fresh report by clearly specifying as to whether the petitioner’s land to the extent of her share was ever used and if so, for which period. He was also required to specify as to what has happened to the share of Sulakhan Singh- petitioner No. 2, who is now being represented by Pyar Kaur-petitioner No. 1. In pursuance of order dated 8.2.2010, a fresh status report dated 8.3.2010 has been filed clarifying that the share of Pyar Kaur-petitioner No. 1 in Khasra No. 650 comes to 1/4th and that of Sulakhan Singh-petitioner No. 2 is 2 CWP No. 16881 of 2003 3/4th. The land in question was used by the Irrigation Department from 1983-84 to 1997 and no user charges have been paid for those years. However, it has been admitted that user charges of one Shri Iqbal Singh, in respect of the land belonging to him, has already been paid, as is evident from the calculation sheet of compensation (A-1). From the very first column of calculation sheet, it is apparent that in respect of Khasra No. 650, the aforesaid Iqbal Singh has been paid the user charges, whereas, according to the fresh status report the land to the extent of 1/4th and 3/4th share is owned by petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. On 17.5.2010, when the case came up for hearing before us, we directed the respondents to disburse the user charges to the petitioners at the permissible rate, In pursuance of order dated 17.5.2010, an affidavit of Shri Sohan Singh Grewal, Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Gurdaspur, dated 15.4.2010, has been filed. The affidavit shows that on the basis of the share of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, the amount has been calculated and the payment of user charges has been made to them. In token of receipt thereof, they have also issued a voucher dated 10.4.2010 (R-4). Nothing remains to be determined in these proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) April 21, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3