Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1484 (PNJ)

Santosh Sharma v. State of Punjab

2000-12-05

JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, K.S.GAREWAL

body2000
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - On October 28, 1991 the respondents issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On February 22, 1992 the Notification under Section 6 was issued. On November 22, 1994 the Land Acquisition Collector gave the award. The land of the petitioner having been acquired, she filed a petition under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. However, vide notification dated January 13, 1999 the State Government decided to "withdraw from acquisition the land ..." Aggrieved by the notification dated January 13, 1999, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner alleges that the payment was made to her in terms of the award. She had accepted the payment under protest. She had claimed enhanced compensation. The respondents had taken actual physical possession of "the acquired land along with the accessories ...." on July 20, 1996. A copy of the daily diary report has been produced as Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. She alleges that the respondents having taken the possession, they are not entitled to withdraw from the acquisition and thus, the impugned notification deserves to be quashed. 3. A detailed written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been inter alia averred that vide the Notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 an area in excess of what was actually needed was acquired. However, subsequently it was found that part of the area was not needed and thus, the impugned notification was issued. It has been stated that "the actual possession of the acquired land along with all the accessories has not been taken by the respondents." The Khasra numbers of which the possession had not been taken have been mentioned. It has also been stated that the reasons for not taking the possession of a part of the land have been indicated in the report No. 226. A copy of this report has been produced as Annexure R-2 with the written statement. It is maintained that the copy of the report produced by the petitioner "is totally false/wrong...". It is alleged that "the petitioner has fabricated Roznamcha dated 20.7.99 for which she is liable to be prosecuted under the criminal law". (It has been stated at the bar that there is a typographical error. It is maintained that the copy of the report produced by the petitioner "is totally false/wrong...". It is alleged that "the petitioner has fabricated Roznamcha dated 20.7.99 for which she is liable to be prosecuted under the criminal law". (It has been stated at the bar that there is a typographical error. The correct date is July 20, 1996 and not 20.7.1999) It has been further averred that the petitioners husband has been paying the electricity bills for the consumption of power for running the tubewell. A perusal of the bills shows that the payment had been continuously made for the period from April 29, 1994 to January 31, 1997. The document containing the details has been produced as Annexure R-4 with the written statement. 4. The written statement on behalf of the respondents was filed in October 1999. No replication has been filed. 5. Mr. Gurpreet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the action of the respondents in withdrawing from the acquisition is wholly illegal. They had already taken possession of the land. On the other hand Mr. Berry, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the possession having not been taken, the petitioner has no tenable claim. 6. The short issue is - Did the respondents take possession of the land in dispute in the year 1996 ? 7. The petitioner rests her case in the daily diary report dated July 20, 1996. This document has been produced as Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. The correctness of this report has been disputed by the respondents. They have produced the report No. 226. In this report it has been specifically mentioned that in "khasra Nos. 113-115-116-117-122-111-112 the tubewell of owner Kishori Lal is installed. In this very area pipes have been laid down. After removal of the pipes, the possession can be taken. As such the possession could not be taken." This is a specific report. There is an averment in the written statement as well. The petitioner has not filed any affidavit to controvert the assertion made on behalf of the respondents. This is so despite the fact that she had more than one years time to do so. 8. Another fact which deserves mention is that this case was posted before this Bench for the first time on November 8, 2000. The petitioner has not filed any affidavit to controvert the assertion made on behalf of the respondents. This is so despite the fact that she had more than one years time to do so. 8. Another fact which deserves mention is that this case was posted before this Bench for the first time on November 8, 2000. On that date an adjournment had been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner "to enable him to produce the entries from the revenue record like Khasra Girdawari etc. to prove that actual physical possesion of the land in dispute has been taken by the respondents". No document has been produced. Mr Gurpreet Singh learned counsel for the petitioner, status that he has got the copies of the Khasra Girdawaries, and that these indicate the possession of the petitioner. Thus, these have not been produced. In this situation, it is clear that the assertion made on behalf of the respondents that the actual physical possession of the land had not been taken despite the fact that the compensation had been paid to the petitioner is correct. It is borne out from the entries in the revenue record. 9. In the view of the above, the inevitable conclusion is that the respondents have not taken the possession of the land in dispute. They were thus entitled to withdraw from the acquisition in terms of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 10. Mr. Gurpreet Singh contends that even in other cases, where the revenue entries indicated that actual physical possession had not been taken, the State has not withdrawn from the acquisition. 11. It may or may not be so. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it has been clearly asserted on behalf of the respondents that the possession had not been taken. Even the revenue entires, which Mr. Gurpreet Singh has got, show nothing to the contrary. In fact, learned counsel has very fairly stated before us that in the Khasra Girdawaries the petitioner is shown to be in possession. This being the factual position, the claim made on behalf of the petitioner that the possession had been actually taken cannot be sustained. The action is in conformity with Law. No case of discrimination is made out. 12. Mr. Gurpreet Singh, has tried to place reliance on the daily diary report dated July 20, 1996. We have perused this report. This being the factual position, the claim made on behalf of the petitioner that the possession had been actually taken cannot be sustained. The action is in conformity with Law. No case of discrimination is made out. 12. Mr. Gurpreet Singh, has tried to place reliance on the daily diary report dated July 20, 1996. We have perused this report. There is a dispute regarding its correctness. The statement made on behalf of the respondents has not even been controverted by the petitioner. Therefore, we do not consider it appropriate to accept the correctness of the report. Still further, as already conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the revenue entries do not support the petitioners claim. Added to all this is the fact that even the consumption of electricity for use of the tubewell does not show any downward trend. If a substantial area of the land belonging to the petitioner had been actually taken away by the respondents, the consumption of power should have been lesser. The details given by the respondents in Annexure R-4 with the written statement militate against the petitioners claim. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is consequently dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.