C.W.P. No.6050 of 1985 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.6050 of 1985 Date of Decision: 9.1.2008 Shiv Kumar and another .....Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.A.C. Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana. Ms.Nirmaljit Kaur, Assistant Solicitor General of India for Union of India-respondent no.3. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The sole prayer in this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is, for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay compensation, as assessed in the award dated 3.5.1984, passed by Sh.Raj Kumar Gupta, the then District Judge, Faridabad. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the award was pronounced in the year 1984. However, a compensation as assessed has not been paid to the petitioners. Counsel for the Union of India, on the other hand, submits that the award appended with the writ petition does not disclose the names of the parties, more particularly, the names of the petitioners and, therefore, a writ of Mandamus, should not be issued. Counsel for the State of Haryana, submits that the land was acquired, at the asking of the Union of India and payment, if any, has to be made by the Union of India. C.W.P. No.6050 of 1985 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. It is not denied that land belonging to the petitioners was initially requisitioned and thereafter acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17.10.1967, published in the Haryana Government Gazette under the Defence of India Act, 1962. The dispute regarding assessment of the market value was referred to and finally decided by the then District Judge, Faridabad, exercising the powers of an Arbitrator, under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952( hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Despite the award having been pronounced in the year 1984, the compensation assessed thereunder has not been paid to the petitioners. The only plea raised by the respondent Union of India is that the petitioners name does not find mention in the award. In response, the petitioners case was that a consolidated award was passed with respect to the entire land and was to enure to the benefit of all land owners. The Act does not contain any provision for execution of awards. The only efficacious remedy in such a situation, is to file a petition, praying for issuance of a writ, directing the respondents to pay compensation. As admittedly, compensation has not been paid to the petitioners, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.3, to decide the petitioners claim, with respect to payment of compensation under the award passed by the District Judge, Faridabad, dated 3.5.1984, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Disposed of accordingly. 9.1.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE