Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1019 (PNJ)

Kafila Forge Ltd. v. State Of Haryana

2008-05-13

RANJIT SINGH

body2008
Judgment Ranjit Singh, J. 1. The petitioner, which is having an industrial unit for manufacturing of Iron and Steel Forging and Automobile parts, was owning a land measuring 53 kanals 5 marlas in village Kundli, District Sonepat. The respondent-State of Haryana and others acquired the said land owned by the petitioner-company, but it is claimed that superstructure/buildings/trees etc. were not acquired by the respondents nor any compensation was paid for the same in favour of the petitioner. This plea is raised on the ground that award of the Land Acquisition Collector is silent on these aspects. The petitioner-company is alleged to have applied for conversion of land use through their letter dated 7.7.1997. Still, the Land Acquisition Collector, Sonepat has issued notice on 21.7.2004 intimating that land measuring 28 kanals 7 marlas as well as the tubewell and kotha had been acquired vide award dated 15.12.1998 and sum of Rs. 24,57,525,25/- stands awarded in favour of the petitioner-company. Still, it is claimed that no compensation was paid for superstructure. The suit was accordingly filed where the prayer for injunction was made seeking to restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the superstructure and from interfering in its peaceful possession. 2. On notice being issued, the respondents contested the plea raised by the petitioner. It is pointed out that the petitioner is guilty of concealing material facts from the court. It is pointed out that they had earlier filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed. The Special Leave Petition against the same was also dismissed. In this background, it is pleaded the civil court has no jurisdiction to go into legality and illegality of the award passed by the Land acquisition Collector. It is also pointed out that the petitioner had received a huge sum as compensation. 3. The facts in this case would show that 33 killas of land situated in village Kundli was acquired and notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 5.8.1997. This was followed by a notice under Section 6 of the Act on 31.7.1998 and the award was announced by the Collector on 15.12.1998. It is then pointed out that supplementary award of superstructure was announced on 28.4.1999. This was followed by a notice under Section 6 of the Act on 31.7.1998 and the award was announced by the Collector on 15.12.1998. It is then pointed out that supplementary award of superstructure was announced on 28.4.1999. It is thereafter that the petitioner had preferred a civil writ petition before this Court for release of their acquired land and for possession of the land measuring 29 kanals 7 marlas having not been handed over to H.S.I.D.C. The High Court had constituted a sub-committee to examine this aspect. The sub-committee did not recommend the release of the land of the petitioner which he again challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 10122 of 2002, which was dismissed on 28.8.2002. Against this, the petitioner filed a petition before the Honble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed. 4. The question then would be whether the petitioner can file a suit as he has done now in this background?. In my view, this is only to delay the inevitable. Just to show the conduct of the petitioner to mislead the court, it can be noticed that Halqa Patwari had reported existence of tubewell kotha in the suit land and sum of Rs. 26,785/- was paid in this regard and sum of Rs. 1,220/- towards the costs of the trees. It is also noticed by the court that if any superstructure is existing over the suit land, the same was raised after publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 5. Mr. Arun Jain, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner could not dispute during the course of arguments that the land which is subject matter of a suit formed part of the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. He also could not dispute that the award has already been passed by Land Acquisition Collector and compensation has been accepted by the petitioner. The only plea is that no award has been made for superstructure, kotha, shed and boundary wall. Such a plea, if available, could very well be raised in the writ petition, which the petitioner filed and remained unsuccessful. The legality of the award cannot be questioned by filing a civil suit. The authority in this regard, if one can be had from the cases of Laxmi Chand and Ors. Such a plea, if available, could very well be raised in the writ petition, which the petitioner filed and remained unsuccessful. The legality of the award cannot be questioned by filing a civil suit. The authority in this regard, if one can be had from the cases of Laxmi Chand and Ors. v. Gram Panchayat, and Ambalal v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, where it has been held that civil court will not have any jurisdiction to take cognizance in cases falling under Land Acquisition Act. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner could not make any substantial submission to show that the suit to challenge the acquisition on the grounds as made out would be maintainable despite the law as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the above noted judgments. 7. I am of the considered opinion that the suit to challenge the acquisition on the ground that no compensation has been paid for superstructure would not be maintainable especially so when the petitioner had challenged the said award on all the grounds that were available to him by filing a writ petition. The petitioner had failed before Honble Supreme Court as well. The impugned order, as such, would not suffer from any infirmity and would not call for any interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.