CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8546 OF 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: January 30, 2009. Parties Name Sarwan Singh ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Punjab and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondents No. 1 and 3. Mr. N.S. Boparai, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? JASBIR SINGH, J. JUDGMENT By a notification dated November 11, 1993, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act), 134 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land belonging to the petitioner, his brothers Karamjit Singh, Jasbir Singh and one Harbachan Kaur was notified for acquisition. After completing necessary formalities under the Act, the Collector assessed price of the acquired land @ Rs. 1,75,000/- per Acre. Feeling CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8546 OF 2007 -2- dissatisfied, owners made an application before the competent Court as is envisaged under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. It was the contention of the claimants that the commercial potentiality and market value of the land was not less than Rs. 13,00,000/- per Acre. Matter was referred to the District Judge for adjudication. Additional District Judge, Ropar, awarded an amount of Rs. 6,45,000/- per Acre to the claimants, including the petitioner vide order dated April 2, 1998. The claimants were also held entitled to get other statutory benefits provided under the Act. The petitioner along with other claimants came to this Court in Regular First Appeal No. 2322 of 1998, claiming enhanced amount of compensation. That appeal was allowed by this Court vide order dated August 23, 2006, granting an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- per Acre along with all statutory benefits available under the Act. It is common ground that for recovery of the enhanced amount of compensation , execution filed by the petitioner and other claimants is pending before the competent Court. This writ petition has now been filed with the following prayers: “i)Whether the State Government and/ or its instrumentality can adopt delayed tactics in making payment of compensation @ Rs. 8 lacs per Acre as determined by this Hon'ble Court by its judgment dated 23.08.2006 (Annexure P-6)? ii)Whether the action of the respondents in (1) acquiring the land of the petitioner in piecemeal manner , (2) wrongfully delaying the payment of compensation of the petitioner's land which had been acquired or by making payment of compensation in piecemeal and (3) by not making the payment of enhanced compensation to the petitioner soon CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8546 OF 2007 -3- after the annoucement of the award of Additional District Judge and by making the payment of the same as per their convenience and on the basis of self made rules; and (4) by not allotting the industrial plot of land to the petitioner, is arbitrary, illegal and justified? iii)In case the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, then whether the petitioner is entitled to damages of Rs. 10 crores as value of land in the locality has risen from Rs. 8 lacs per Acre in 1993 to Rs. 6 Crores per Acre in 2006-07 as the petitioner with the compensation paid to him can hardly now purchase 1 or 2 Acre of land and that too for away from the land in Village Sohana? iv)Whether the action of the respondents in not framing the policy for allotment of industrial plot or residential plots to the oustees whose land is acquired is arbitrary and illegal? v) Whether the action of the respondents in not allotting the industrial and/ or residential plot to the petitioner in lieu of his land which has been acquired in Village Sohana is arbitrary and illegal? vi)Whether the respondents are justified in acquiring the land when they or the agency for which the land was acquired, have no resources to make the payment of compensation/ enhanced compensation to the landowners whose land is acquired and delay in payment of compensation on account of non-availability of funds with PSIEC/ State Government? vii)Whether the State Government and /or its officers have CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8546 OF 2007 -4- committed wrong by making payment of the compensation / enhanced compensation as per their convenience and on the basis of self made rules and in not following the procedure laid down under the Act?” In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that he along with his four brothers inherited land measuring 134 Kanals 10 Marlas in village Sohana, district Ropar. That piece of land was allotted to them in lieu of their ancestral land in village Ram Nagar, which was acquired by the respondent – State in the year 1952 for setting up the capital project of Chandigarh. Some land was also allotted in village Manimajra, however, the same was taken back by the respondents on a promise that another piece of land shall be allotted to the owners. Nothing was done. Litigation with regard to said land is pending in this Court. The petitioner's further case is that with a view to acquire land measuring 134 Kanals 10 Marlas, a Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on November 11, 1993. However, subsequent thereto on April 19, 1994, Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued only with regard to land measuring 59 Kanals 10 Marlas. Award was announced by the Collector on June 16, 1994. In the meantime on April 19, 1994, another Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued to acquire remaining portion of land measuring 75 Kanals, from the ownership of the petitioner and his brothers. On a reference made to the civil Court, the compensation was enhanced. The petitioner and other owners came to this Court and while deciding Regular First Appeal No. 2322 of 1998, on August 23, 2006, amount of compensation was increased to Rs. 8,00,000/- per Acre along CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8546 OF 2007 -5- with other statutory benefits and interest. It is the contention of the petitioner that by acquiring the land in a piecemeal manner and not paying actual price in one go, grave injustice has been done to him. It has further been stated that even now enhanced compensation has not been paid, which has resulted in a huge monetary loss. It is further averred that the petitioner being an oustee was entitled to get one industrial plot out of the plots, which were carved out in the land in dispute . Petitioner further states that demand to get an industrial plot was raised before the Collector, who while passing the award on June 16, 1994, ordered that demand of the land owners, for allotment of an industrial plot, in lieu of land acquired shall be sent to respondent No. 2 for sympathetic consideration. When nothing was done, petitioner and others filed C.W.P. No. 4157 of 1999, which was disposed of by this Court on February 21, 2000, giving liberty to the petitioners therein to move an application for allotment of an industrial plot and the competent authority was directed to consider their application within a specified period. However, request was declined vide order (letter) dated July 13, 2006 (P-5). Contents of the letter read as under: “In this context, it is intimated that no reservation in the Allotment Policy of the State Govt. notified on 24.11.1992 read with 1.6.96, 10.12.98 and 24.10.2002/ 2.9.05 exists for allotment of plots to the Oustee landowners, as such you can not be allotted Industrial plot as per the existing policy. However, you may apply afresh as and when Corporation invites applications through press advertisement in future for allotment of Industrial Plots in Focal Point, Mohali in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8546 OF 2007 -6- accordance with the notified policy of the State Govt. as applicable.” It is in the above circumstances that this writ petition has been filed claiming reliefs, mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Upon notice, reply was filed, wherein it has been stated that to get enhanced amount of compensation, awarded to the land owners by this Court vide order dated August 23, 2006 (P-6), execution applications are pending. It has further been stated that compensation, as enhanced from time to time, had been paid along with statutory benefits and interest. Regarding claim of the petitioner for an industrial plot, it has been stated that there was no policy providing for such an allotment and accordingly prayer made by the petitioner was rejected. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the land was acquired, at different times by the Government by exercising its power of eminant domain and the powers available under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The land was acquired for a public purpose, i.e., to set up an Industrial Focal Point. If the petitioner had any grievance with regard to piecemeal acquisition of his land, he should have raised an objection to that effect at the relevant time. Total land acquired of the petitioner and his brothers was measuring 134 Kanals 10 Marlas, which was notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Act as early as in the month of November, 1993. With regard to some portion of land, referred to above, a notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued in the month of April, 1994. Regarding the rest of the land, another notification was issued under Section 6 in the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8546 OF 2007 -7- month of November, 1994. Petitioner never challenged the above said notifications. Rather he along with other land owners chose to move an application under Section 18 of the Act claiming higher compensation, which was awarded vide orders passed in the year 1998. That prayer was allowed by the Civil Court and also by this Court's order dated August 23, 2006. For a long period of more than a decade, petitioner remained satisfied and never challenged the acquisition proceedings. It is, therefore, too late for him to do so at this stage. Claim of the petitioner for allotment of an industrial plot is also not justified. No doubt , the said claim was agitated before the Collector, who in his award said that the claim may be considered sympathetically by respondent No. 2, but when no relief was granted, the petitioner came to this Court in C.W.P. No. 4157 of 1999, which was disposed of on February 21, 2000, directing the authorities to consider his claim for allotment of a plot. The said prayer was rejected vide order dated July 13, 2006 (P-5) stating that in various policies set out by the Government, there was no provision for allotment of a plot to an oustee land owner. Option was given to the petitioner to apply, as and when occasion may arise, for such an allotment. To claim allotment of an industrial plot, reliance has been placed by counsel for the petitioner upon the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Smt. Pista Devi and others, etc. etc, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 2025. The benefit of the said judgment cannot in our opinion be extended in favour of the petitioner. That was a case where land was acquired to provide residential accommodation. It was contended by the land owners that they did not own any other house or CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8546 OF 2007 -8- shop sites and if they were thrown out from their land, they would be exposed to serious prejudice. It was the contention of the land owners therein that to settle others, they cannot be unsettled. Under those circumstances, their lordships of the Supreme Court observed that some scheme be devised to provide house site or shop site to the land owners, whose land was acquired. In the present case, position is altogether different. Petitioner is an agriculturist. His land was acquired along with other co-owners. They did not agitate their right to get any alternative allotment. Land was utilised to set out an industrial focal point and not for any residential or commercial purpose. There exists no policy to allot an industrial plot to an oustee. Another contention of the counsel for the petitioner that by acquiring the land in piecemeal manner and adopting delaying tactics in payment of compensation, loss has been caused to the petitioner, is also liable to be rejected. In acquring the land, respondents have exercised statutory powers under the Act. After compulsory acquisition, the owners are entitled to get statutory benefits and for delay in payment, provision for payment of interest has been made. In view of above said circumstances, this argument is also rejected. In view of facts, mentioned above, we feel that no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. No case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( T.S. Thakur ) January 30, 2009. Chief Justice DKC