WRIT PETITION 12154 of 1991 on 31 January 1983

JUDGMENT

This judgment will dispose of three petitions , i.e., Civil WritPetitions No. 12154 of 1991, 8898 of`1991 and 8811 of 1996. For facilityof dictating judgment facts are being taken from CWP No. 12154 of 1991.

In this writ petition, challenge has been laid to a notificationissued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (in short the Act)on March 11, 1977 proposing to acquire 3 Acres, 1 Kanal and 14 Marlas ofland, for a public purpose, namely, construction of New Mandi Township atPathankot. Challenge has also been laid to a Notification issued under Section 6 of the Act on March 14, 1977. It is necessary to mention here thatwhile issuing above said notifications, provisions of Section 17 of the Actwere also invoked. Challenge has also been laid to the Award passed onSeptember 23, 1986.

It is apparent from the records that the petitioners earlier alsofiled a Civil Writ Petition No. 5726 of 1982 with a prayer to quash thenotifications issued under Sections 4 and 6. That writ petition was allowedin their favour vide order dated January 31, 1983 and the notifications inquestion were quashed. The respondent -State went to the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and in Civil Appeal No. 2334 of 1986, vide order dated March 6,1987, judgment, passed by the High Court, was quashed and the acquisitionwas upheld. Concluding portion of the judgment, passed by the SupremeCourt, reads thus:

“That the judgment and order dated 31[st] January, 1983 of theHigh Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil WritPetition No. 5726 of 1982 be and is hereby set aside and inplace thereof an order dismissing the above mentioned WritPetition filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court be and ishereby substituted;High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil WritPetition No. 5726 of 1982 be and is hereby set aside and inplace thereof an order dismissing the above mentioned WritPetition filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court be and ishereby substituted;

2. That the parties herein shall bear their own costs of the saidappeal in this Court.appeal in this Court.

3. That the order of this court dated 10[th] December, 1986 passedin the civil miscellaneous petition No. 14226 of 1983 in thesaid appeal directing the maintenance of status quo, be and ishereby vacated. Hence the Hon'ble Supreme Court hasin the civil miscellaneous petition No. 14226 of 1983 in thesaid appeal directing the maintenance of status quo, be and ishereby vacated. Hence the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already adjudicated the matter in view of the respondents.Question to release the land at this stage does not arise.”

When the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, Awardwas passed on September 23, 1986. The petitioners thereafter kept mumand filed this writ petition only in the year 1991 to lay challenge to theabove said notifications and the Award.

It is primary grievance of the petitioners that the Award waspassed only with regard to land and nothing was provided therein so far assuper-structures are concerned. Be that as it may, in view of the judgmentof the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohanji and another v. State of U.P.And others, JT 1995 (8) S.C. 599, which was followed thereafter in thecase ofState of Punjab and others v. Sharan Pal Singh and others, CivilAppeals Nos. 11850-53 of 1995, decided on December 14, 1995, impugnednotifications and the Award cannot be quashed. The petitioners, ifaggrieved for non-grant of compensation, for the superstructures could havefiled claim under Section 18 of the Act.

Further contention of counsel for the petitioners that by shiftingthe proposed road to the adjoining area, the constructed house of thepetitioners could have been saved is of no substance at this stage. This pleawas raised before the Supreme Court and was rejected while upholding theissuance of notifications. It is also contended by counsel for the petitionersthat on a representation made by them, the matter was reconsidered by thecompetent authority. A report was made by the O.S.D. , RevenueDepartment, on May 22, 2007, stating that the road could not be constructed CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12154 OF 1991

at the spot on account of resistance caused by the petitioners and further thatthe proposed alternative road, may be more suitable. At this stage, it is notpossible for us to interfere in the acquisition, which had become final in theyear 1987. The area could not be used for the purpose for which it wasacquired because firstly the acquisition proceedings were quashed by thisCourt and thereafter the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the acquisition inthe year 1987. The construction raised was in existence when theacquisition was upheld. It is not case of the petitioners that in theintervening period, they have raised the construction. The road could not beconstructed because of resistance shown by the petitioners. No case is madeout for interference. This writ petition is dismissed.

CWP No. 8898 of 1991:

So far as CWP No. 8898 of 1991 is concerned, in this case it isprimary grievance of the petitioners that Award and the Notifications, videwhich the land was acquired, be quashed because no compensation wasawarded for the super-structures when award was passed on April 11, 1991.For the reasons given in the earlier part of this judgment, nocase is made out for interference in this case also. Dismissed.

CWP No. 8811 of 1996:

By filing CWP No. 8811 of 1996, notification issued underSection 4 of the Act on June 7, 1993, and further notification issued underSection 6 of the Act on January 3, 1994, are under challenge. Furtherchallenge has been laid to an award passed on February 14, 1996. Thispetition was filed in the month of June, 1996. In view of ratio of thejudgment inStar Wire(India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana,(1996) 11 SCC

698, this writ petition having been filed after passing of an award cannot beentertained. Furthermore, by the time this writ petition was filed, most ofthe area was utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired. Dismissed.

( JASBIR SINGH )JUDGE

December 03 , 2010. DKC

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)JUDGE