IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17102 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 19, 2011 Kuldip Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTI HON’BLE MR. JUSTI HON’BLE MR. JUSTI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CE CE CE GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Naresh Kumar Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. AG, 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. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the action of the respondent State for illegally acquiring the land of the petitioners without payment of any compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). The land has been utilised after taking possession on 27.12.2001 for construction of water course. An attempt was made to acquire the land by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act on 31.1.2002 for construction of reclamation channel but the notification has been allowed to lapse. 2. A similar matter arising out of the same notification had earlier come up before this Court in the case of Gurdeep Singh and Gurdeep Singh and Gurdeep Singh and Gurdeep Singh and others others others others v. v. v. v. State of Punjab and others State of Punjab and others State of Punjab and others State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 11041 of 2009, (CWP No. 11041 of 2009, (CWP No. 11041 of 2009, (CWP No. 11041 of 2009, decided decided decided decided on 10.2.2010, Annexure P on 10.2.2010, Annexure P on 10.2.2010, Annexure P on 10.2.2010, Annexure P-6) 6) 6) 6). The operative part of the order passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid proceedings reads as under:- CWP No. 17102 of 2011 2 “ Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have been treated harshly by the respondent. Firstly, they are deprived of their land and then no compensation has been paid for their land for the last about 9 years. The notifications issued under Section 4 & 6 of the Act in the years 2002 and 2003 have been permitted to lapse. In these circumstances, we accept the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and deem it just and appropriate to direct respondent Nos.2 & 3 to assess the damages in respect of the land of the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre per annum from the date of acquiring possession, i.e., 27.12.2001 upto 30.06.2010 and pay them the amount so calculated along with 9% interest. The needful shall be done within two months from today. However, damages beyond 30.06.2010 can be calculated and paid up from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the compensation with regard to the acquisition of the land has to be paid if any notification under Section 4 of the Act is issued and the award is passed as per the rates given in the award. The petitioners are at liberty to file fresh petition if no acquisition proceedings are initiated by the respondents within 6 months from today. In view of above, writ petition stands disposed of.” 3. In the opening para of the preliminary submissions made in the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, it has been pointed out that the respondents are ready to make payment as per CWP No. 17102 of 2011 3 the judgment dated 10.2.2010 passed in Gurdeep Singh’s case (supra). 4. In view of the above, we accept the prayer made by the petitioners and direct the respondents to assess the damage in respect of the land of the petitioners at the rate of `20,000/- per acre per annum from the date of acquiring possession, i.e., 27.12.2001 up to 30.09.2011 and pay them the amount so calculated along with interest @ 9% per annum. In the case of Gurdeep Singh (supra), this Court has granted liberty to the respondent State of Punjab to resort to acquisition proceedings within a period of six months from that day. However, no acquisition proceedings have been initiated so far. It shows that the respondent-State wants to continue with the use of petitioners’ land without paying them compensation. Therefore, we direct that the respondent State of Punjab shall continue to pay damages to the petitioners beyond 30.9.2011 in the same manner as has been directed in Gurdeep Singh’s case (supra) till the time notification under Section 4 of the Act is issued and the award is passed as per the rates given in the award. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice (GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH) September 19 September 19 September 19 September 19, 2010 , 2010 , 2010 , 2010 Judge Judge Judge Judge PKapoor