Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. A small area of land measuring 14 kanals was notified for acquisition on 4th February 1974 to ameliorate the sufferings of landless Harijans for providing a small dwelling unit to them in a colony that was to be established by the Government on this piece of land. A period of almost three decades has gone by and yet, the object for which land was acquired, has not been achieved, thus, rendering a section of the society unable to get over the problem of home stead, so essential for life. The present case provides classic example where a welfare scheme, envisaged by the Government for providing a small dwelling unit to the most needed section of the society, has been thwarted by some influential persons, like petitioner, in connivance with the Government officials. This injustice caused to the weaker section of the society, endeavored by the influential persons, like petitioner, is sought to be perpetuated by means of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Hardayal Singh, who appears to be fighting a proxy litigation, as would emanate from the facts to be given hereinafter, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the State of Punjab, officers of the Government and 64 others, to quash notification dated 4th February, 1974 (Annexure P.7), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) as also notification under Section 6, notice under Section 9 and award announced, pursuant to the notifications, in 1974. 3. Brief facts, as projected in the petition reveal that land comprised in Rect. No. 60, Kiila No. 17(6-4), 14(7-16), total measuring 14 kanals, was owned by Aziz, Diwan and Ram Singh in equal shares situated at village Mithri Budhgir. Further, vide mutation bearing No. 1567, the said land was transferred in favour of the provincial Government on 20th January, 1977, Still further, vide mutation No. 1568 this land was transferred to private respondents, i.e., respondent Nos. 4 to 67 for construction of a colony. One of the original owners, namely, Aziz, is stated to have died on 27th February, 1980. Mutation with regard to his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of petitioner on the basis of an oral will. 4 to 67 for construction of a colony. One of the original owners, namely, Aziz, is stated to have died on 27th February, 1980. Mutation with regard to his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of petitioner on the basis of an oral will. It is then pleaded that in February, 1995, some of the private respondents tried to dispossess Surinder Singh son of Shri Harchand Singh from the land in dispute. Constrained, Surinder Singh, filed civil suit which was dismissed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Giddarbaha on 4th November, 1996, against which Surinder Singh filed an appeal, on the basis of his being a tenant, which was allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot on 29th October, 1997. Some of the private respondents filed Civil Writ Petition No. 15950 of 1998 in this Court against the Panchayat Department as also Surinder Singh aforesaid, who was stated to be in possession of land in dispute, for issuing a direction to construct the colony for Harijans. The respondent-State appeared and filed written statement wherein it took the plea that land had been acquired vide notification dated 4th February, 1974. During the pendency of writ petition aforesaid, Block Development and Panchayat Officer-respondent No. 2 herein, took actual physical possession of the land,even though till date land in dispute is stated to be in cultivating possession of Surinder Singh. Writ aforesaid was disposed of on 30th November, 1999 on the statement made by learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab that necessary steps for allotment of land to landless Harijans would be taken within a period of three months. In February, 2000, the petitioner came to know that private respondents were taking steps to get the possession. On enquiries he came to know about the Rapat Roznamchas, notification and order dated 30th November, 1999 passed by this Court. Thereafter, petitioner is staled to have tried to obtain the copies of declaration under Section 6, notice under Section 9 and award under Section 11 of the Act. It is then pleaded that no declaration under Section 6 or notice under Section 9 was issued nor any award was given by the Land Acquisition Collector and no compensation has been paid to the petitioner, It is on the broad facts as stated above, that writ petition was filed in this Court for the relief, already indicated above. 4. It is then pleaded that no declaration under Section 6 or notice under Section 9 was issued nor any award was given by the Land Acquisition Collector and no compensation has been paid to the petitioner, It is on the broad facts as stated above, that writ petition was filed in this Court for the relief, already indicated above. 4. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, two separate written statements, one on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the other on behalf of respondent No. 55 have been filed. Respondent No. 55 has also filed an application for vacation of stay which was granted by the Motion Bench, to which petitioner also filed reply. It has, inter alia, been pleaded in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that actual physical possession of the land was taken on 13th August, 1999 as per directions given by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 15950 of 1998. In the interim order dated 20th July, 1999 it was made clear that Government would take actual physical possession of the land acquired for the purpose of giving plots to Scheduled Castes person. Rapat Roznamcha dated 13th August, 1998, Annexure P.1 is stated to be substantive proof of taking actual physical possession. After taking possession, the department had given land in question to 26 scheduled castes persons of village Mithri Budhgir, out of 63 original allottees in whose names the land was transferred. It is then pleaded that petitioner was not the owner of the property in dispute in 1974 when it was acquired by the Government. At that time, Aziz son of Ahmed, Diwan Singh son of Chandra Singh and Ram Singh son of Fateh Singh were owners of the land and they had not challenged mutation Nos. 1566 and 1567 and if no compensation had been paid, they would have challenged the acquisition proceedings or mutations at that stage. It is then pleaded that Surinder Singh son of Harchand Singh, in connivance with some of the respondents, filed an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Faridakot, in which injunction orders were passed. 1566 and 1567 and if no compensation had been paid, they would have challenged the acquisition proceedings or mutations at that stage. It is then pleaded that Surinder Singh son of Harchand Singh, in connivance with some of the respondents, filed an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Faridakot, in which injunction orders were passed. This point was taken in Civil Writ Petition wherein it was held that injunction order passed by learned additional District Judge would operate only qua persons, who were defendants/respondents in the said proceedings and it could not bind the Government from taking possession of the acquired land. It is also pleaded that land was acquired as per the provisions of the Act and the said proceedings could not be challenged at such a belated stage. 5. Respondent No. 55, in the preliminary objections taken in the written statement filed on his behalf, avers that the writ petition virtually calls into question judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 15950 of 1998, which is not permissible. Oral will in favour of petitioner has been denied. Legality of the oral will has also been questioned. It is then pleaded that Surinder Singh was a party respondent in Civil Writ Petition No. 15950 of 1998. A perusal of the present writ would show that petitioner has not alleged himself to be in possession of the land in dispute and rather alleged that Surinder Singh was in possession. After taking stay, the petitioner, in collusion with Surinder Singh had demolished the house of answering respondent on the land. He had taken law in his own hands. It is then stated that the petitioner has filed this petition in collusion with Surinder Singh. In fact, Surinder Singh kept possession of land for a long time because of his relations with the Chief Minister and it is only when this Court intervened that respondents were delivered possession of land in question. It is categorical case of respondent No. 55 that present petition has been filed for the benefit of Surinder Singh. 6. Judgment of this Court dated 30th November, 1999 (Annexure P.6) recorded in Civil Writ Petition No. 15980 of 1998 would clearly show that the same was filed on behalf of Kaur Singh, Kirpal Singh and Dalbir Singh allottees of land in dispute. 6. Judgment of this Court dated 30th November, 1999 (Annexure P.6) recorded in Civil Writ Petition No. 15980 of 1998 would clearly show that the same was filed on behalf of Kaur Singh, Kirpal Singh and Dalbir Singh allottees of land in dispute. Their case was that despite the fact that land had since been acquired way back in 1974, possession thereof was being illegally retained by Surinder Singh. Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat was also arrayed as party-respondent, who, it appears,was hand-in-glove with respondent Surinder Singh. The judgment recorded by Division Bench in Civil Writ Petition No. 15950 of 1998 proceeds as follows:- "The main prayer made in this petition filed on 8th October, 1998 is for issuance of a direction to the official respondents to construct colony for Harijans on the land, which was acquired by the State Government for that purpose. The substance of allegations made in the writ petition is that due to the connivance of officers of Panchayat Department, possession of the land, acquired by the Government, was retained by respondent No. 4". 7. The order then refers to interim directions given by the Court to official respondents to secure possession of the land which had since been acquired by the Government and further that possession had indeed been secured by the Government. Operative part of the order reads as follows:- "Shri Rupinder Khosla, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, also stated that necessary steps for allotment of the land to the landless Harijans and other eligible sections of the society in accordance with the policy framed by the Government of Punjab for allotment to residential plots of the landless persons would be taken within a period of three months. In view of the statement made by the learned Deputy Advocate General, the petition is disposed of as infructuous." 8. Sh. D.P.S. Kahlon, Advocate, appeared on behalf of respondent No. 4 in the aforesaid writ petition when final order dated 30th November, 199 was passed. 9. Reply by way of affidavit of Surinder Singh, so arrayed as respondent No. 4 in the petition aforesaid, has been annexed with the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 55 as Annexure R55/1. It is interesting to note that Surinder Singh claimed the property on the dint of mutation sanctioned in favour of his wife on 22nd March, 1980 after the death of Aziz. It is interesting to note that Surinder Singh claimed the property on the dint of mutation sanctioned in favour of his wife on 22nd March, 1980 after the death of Aziz. How a property that came to be vested with the Government, was mutation in favour of Surinder Kaur, wife of Surinder Singh is not known. How could Surinder Singh succeed to the property of Aziz son of Ahmed is also not known nor the same was disclosed in the written statement filed on behalf of Surinder Singh respondent No. 4. He, however, claimed possession being husband of Surinder Kaur and then made a reference of the proceedings of civil Court in which the appellate court had granted him injunction which had earlier been refused by trial Court. Not a word is mentioned in the reply that notification under Section 4 was not taken to its logical end by issuing declaration under Section 6 or notice under Section 9 or pronouncing award and paying compensation to any one, be it Aziz or Surinder Kaur. The Government also, as would be apparent from the reading of order recorded in Civil Writ Petition No. 15950 of 1998 clearly stated that possession of land had been taken and given to those for whose benefit it was acquired. Such a statement could be made only if the steps for acquiring the land had been taken. 10. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that property came to be mutated in favour of the petitioner on the dint of an oral will from Aziz not only militate against the plea taken by Surinder Singh in the reply filed on his behalf in the writ petition No. 15950 of 1998 but is also legally unsustainable. It require to be mentioned here that Surinder Singh claimed the property by virtue of mutation after the death of Aziz in favour of his wife./ The petitioner in the present case is claiming Surinder Singh to be in possession of the land. As mentioned above, besides the fact that plea taken by the petitioner militates against the one taken by Surinder Singh, it further shows that present petition has been filed on behalf of Surinder Singh, who lost his cause in the earlier writ petition, referred to above. It may be reiterated that petitioner does not claim himself to be in possession. As mentioned above, besides the fact that plea taken by the petitioner militates against the one taken by Surinder Singh, it further shows that present petition has been filed on behalf of Surinder Singh, who lost his cause in the earlier writ petition, referred to above. It may be reiterated that petitioner does not claim himself to be in possession. If, therefore, he still prays for stay of dispossession or non-construction of houses for Harijans, it can be only for the benefit of Surinder Singh and no body else. Further, the story of succeeding the property of Aziz on the basis of an oral will, appears to have been coined by the petitioner simply with a view to prop up a false case. The challenge to acquisition proceedings after a period of about 30 years would not even otherwise be permissible. Further if the petitioner was not owner of the property in dispute, he can not, be heard complaining about proper steps having not been taken in acquiring the land in dispute. The plea with regard to civil litigating between Surinder Singh and some of the private respondents has since already been taken care of in the earlier writ petition, mentioned above. Looked from any angle, the petitioner does not even have a trible cause. On the contrary, it is quite apparent to this Court that this petition has been filed with a view to perpetuate the injustice caused to respondent Nos. 4 to 67 for whose benefit alone this land was acquired. It is unfortunate that on account of lapse of time, quite a few of them have died and some of them have even left the village. The petitioner who appears to be working at the behest of Surindes Singh, has intentionally prolonged the agony of respondent Nos. 4 to 67 and has gained undue advantage of this frivolous, false and vexatious litigation. 11. Every citizen has a right to approach the Court and if the Court might find infringement of fundamental or civil rights of such citizens, it is duty bound to come to his rescue. The Courts in this country right from the Court of Subordinate Judge to the Apex Court, are open to all. This fundamental right f a citizen to have access to all legal forums constituted in the country can not,however, be permitted to be abused. The Courts in this country right from the Court of Subordinate Judge to the Apex Court, are open to all. This fundamental right f a citizen to have access to all legal forums constituted in the country can not,however, be permitted to be abused. Whereas, the Court is duty bound to interfere at all levels, when fundamental or civil rights of a citizen are infringed, it is also duty bound, in our view, to show a citizen, who abuses the process of law, the exit door and also to mulct him with heavy costs. Reference in this connection may be made to Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jawan Khan and Ors. v. Mewa Singh and Ors., (2001 -2) 128 P.L.R. 397 decided on 28th March, 2001 as also reasoned orders, in Nathu Ram and Ors., v. State of Haryana and Ors., decided on 10th July, 2002 and Ram Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., (2002-3)132 P.L.R. 687 decided on 2nd August, 2002. The present is also a case where the petitioner needs such a treatment. 12. In view of what has been said above, we dismiss this writ petition with costs quantified at Rs. 25,000/-. If the costs are not paid within two months from today, the Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Faridkot shall recover the same as arrears of land revenue. 13. A copy of this order be sent to the Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Faridkot forthwith.