Civil Writ Petition No. 5428 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 5428 of 2010 Date of Decision: 30.8.2010 Deepak Kumar Jindal …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ambika Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 3. Mr. Ashok Khichi, Advocate for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while issuing notice of motion on 26.3.2010, noticed the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner as under:- “...Contends that 5940 sq. feet of land out of the total land measuring 7200 sq. feet belonging to the petitioner is sought to be taken by the respondent Municipal Corporation, Bathinda, vide impugned notice dated 28th April, 2009 (Annexure P-5) without payment of compensation. According to leaned counsel, this is beyond the time limit prescribed in Civil Writ Petition No. 5428 of 2010 2 Section 192(1)(c) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. Notice of motion for 6.7.2010”. In Poornaprajna House Building Co-operative Society v. Bailamma @ Dodda Bailamma 1998(3) Recent Civil Reports 359 a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that it is a well settled proposition of law that a person, who purchases the land subsequent to the initiation of the proceedings of acquisition of land, cannot challenge the same and is only entitled to claim compensation by virtue of sale made in his favour i.e., of right, title and interest of his predecessor. This view was followed by a Single Bench of this Court. Further, Hon'ble the Apex Court in Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others (2008)9 Supreme Court Cases 177 has also reaffirmed this view. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that Om Parkash was the real owner of the property and notice (Annexure R5) was issued to him for payment and determination of quantum of compensation. This fact is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that as per the revenue record, Sant Ram was the original owner from whom he had rightly purchased the property. From the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, there is a serious dispute of fact as to whether the petitioner had purchased the property from its rightful owner or not. Therefore, the Writ Court will be hesitant to adjudicate upon this issue. However, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bathinda, to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and determine as to who was the original/real owner of the property. In case, the Commissioner comes to a Civil Writ Petition No. 5428 of 2010 3 conclusion that the petitioner has purchased the land from the original/real owner, then his claim, for payment of compensation, be considered, in accordance with the provisions of law, within a period of four months of receipt of a certified copy of this order, by passing a speaking order. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 30, 2010 “DK”