IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.16549 of 2010 & other connected cases being CWP Nos.16580,16581 & 16583 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.9.2010 Bikramjeet Sood. -----Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate for the petitioners. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This order will dispose of CWP Nos.16549, 16580, 16581 and 16583 of 2010, as the issue involved in all the petitions is same. 2. In CWP No.16549 of 2010, prayer is for direction to the Land Acquisition Collector to release the amount illegally deducted as Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) out of compensation due to the petitioner as per provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3. Case of the petitioner is that his agricultural land has been acquired, for which compensation was determined, which did not attract any tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, CWP No.16549 of 2010 “the Act”). Inspite of this, tax was deducted under Section 194LS of the Act without determining the question whether tax was payable. This Court in judgment dated 11.1.2010 in Risal Singh v. Union of India [2010] 321 ITR 251 considered the matter and held that without determining the question whether land acquired was other than agricultural land, tax at source could not be deducted. Accordingly, direction was issued to the Income Tax Department to refund the amount to the Collector, who in turn will first determine whether property acquired was agricultural land or otherwise and whether tax at source was liable to be deducted or not and if tax was not liable to be deducted, the amount deducted from the land owner will be returned. 4. We find that inspite of above judgment, either the deduction of tax is still being made or deduction already made is not being refunded by the Income Tax Department and by the Land Acquisition Collectors in the States of Punjab and Haryana. Once a judgment is given by this Court, unless the same is challenged, all concerned have to comply with the same and failure to do so, may call for action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Several petitions continue to be filed in this Court on the same issue on account of failure of the Income Tax Department or the States to perform their duty, resulting in unnecessary litigation. 5. Accordingly, while disposing of these petitions in terms of earlier judgment in Risal Singh, we direct the Chief 2 CWP No.16549 of 2010 Secretaries of Punjab and Haryana and Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh to issue appropriate directions to all concerned forthwith in terms of the aforesaid judgment, so that unnecessary litigation can be avoided. 6. Copies of this order be sent to said authorities for compliance. 7. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of each connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 15, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3