CWP No. 8780 of 1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 8780 of 1997 Date of decision 3.2.2010 Raghu Raj and others ... Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr.SKSood ,Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. AG Punjab Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the claim of the petitioners is that they are labourers. They have come to Punjab in search of work from Uttar Pradesh and they belongs to lower strata of the society. They have been donated land by the Gram Panchyayat of village Sahib Nagar Theri (district Patiala) to construct their houses. They have constructed small houses on the land gifted by the Gram Panchayat and that they have been living there since 1960. They filed a civil suit in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Patiala for permanent injunction in the year 1986. The suit was decreed on 30.4.1990 (P.1) with the observation that petitioners be not forcibly dispossessed from the disputed land except in due course of law. In appeal, filed before the learned Addl. District Judge, the aforesaid directions were upheld vide order dated 31.8.1994 (P.2). Thereafter, the Estate Officer issued a notice and after receipt of reply CWP No. 8780 of 1997 2 has passed an order on 22.2.1996 (P.4) holding that the petitioners were in unauthorized occupation and they were required to evict the land within 30 days from the date of the order. They were asked to vacate the land occupied by them unauthorisedly and give back possession. It is pertinent to notice that Award No. 305 of 1973-74 has been passed way back on 21.3.1974 under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the written statement a specific stand has been taken in para 3 that the petitioners have remained in unauthorized possession of the land in dispute since 1986 only. They were not in possession at the time of acquisition proceedings. Therefore, no inference could be raised that they are local displaced persons. Their claim to have set up their houses in the year 1960 has been denied and there is no replication to the aforesaid assertion of the respondents. Once the land has been acquired in accordance with the provisions of Sections 4,6 and 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and have culminated in passing of an award on 21.3.1974 then it cannot be concluded that the petitioners were in possession of the land earlier to that. Had it been so then the petitioners would have filed objections under Section 5 A of the Act. Moreover,they have been in possession from the year 1986 as is the assertion made in the written statement. Having heard the learned counsel at a considerable length and even exploring some possibility of showing compassion by impressing upon the State to adjust the petitioners, we are of the view that no interference would be called for because the land free from all encumbrances has vested in the State w.e.f. 21.3.1974 as the possession was taken under Section 16 of the Act. There is no indication on the record that the petitioners were in possession on the aforesaid date. Had it been so then they would have filed CWP No. 8780 of 1997 3 objections under Section 5 A of the Act and would have figured in the survey conducted by the Revenue Officer. The revenue record would have established the aforesaid fact. The decision of the Civil Court has been complied with in as much as the Estate Officer has proceeded by adopting proper procedure as per law. The petition does not warrant admission. There is thus no merit in the petition. Dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Ajay Tewari) 3.2.2010 Judge okg