Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3113 (PNJ)

Anant Ram v. State Of Haryana

2010-11-19

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JASBIR SINGH

body2010
Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. Reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 has been filed and the same is taken on record. 2. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release land of the petitioners, which has wrongly been taken in possession to construct a road leading from Village Babain to Village Bir Sujra. 3. It is case of the petitioners that for the above-said road, their land was not ever acquired. It is further stated that possession of the respondent- State on their property is unauthorized. When notice of motion was issued on 17.09.2010, following contention of the counsel for the petitioners was noticed by this Court :- "It is grievance of the petitioners that without acquiring their land, a road has been constructed thereon and despite requests made compensation has not been paid so far." Thereafter, on 12.10.2010, following order was passed :- "State counsel intimates the Court that the reply will be filed after getting demarcation from the Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar. We make it very clear that if in the demarcation report, it comes out that the road has been constructed on the land of the petitioners without acquiring it, the State authorities shall satisfy claim of the petitioners before the next date of hearing. Adjourned to November 19, 2010. Copy of this order be supplied to the State counsel under signatures of the Court Secretary." 4. Reply has been filed stating that after getting the land demarcated, it was found that land measuring 1 Kanal 13 Marlas falling in Khasra No. 25/4 (1K- 4M), 25//5(0K-1M), 17//25(0K-8M) is the ownership of the petitioners and is part of the road in question. It is further stated that to acquire the above- said land, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) was issued on 12.04.1988 followed by another notification under Section 6 of the Act on 30.03.1989. Thereafter, Award was not passed. However, in the meantime, by taking possession of land of the petitioners, road was constructed thereon. It is further stated that the respondents are now ready to pay compensation for the land used for construction of the road, taking date of issuance of Section 6 notification on 30.03.1989 as a base to determine the amount of compensation. However, in the meantime, by taking possession of land of the petitioners, road was constructed thereon. It is further stated that the respondents are now ready to pay compensation for the land used for construction of the road, taking date of issuance of Section 6 notification on 30.03.1989 as a base to determine the amount of compensation. It is further stated that in the year 1989, as per Collectors rate, the land was available @ Rs. 39,000/- per acre. By adding solatium @ 30% and additional amount of 12% from the date mentioned above, an offer has been made to pay an amount of Rs. 1,31,179/- to the petitioners for the land, which was utilized for construction of the road. 5. Taking note of the averments made in the written statement filed at the instance of respondents No. 1 and 2, it becomes apparently clear that land measuring 1 Kanal 13 Marlas, which is ownership of the petitioners, was wrongly used for construction of a road without acquiring the same. Thereafter, despite many requests made, no attempt was made to pay compensation to the petitioners by acquiring the above-said land in a legal manner. The State is not expected to behave in such irresponsible manner. 6. Admittedly, the land owned by the petitioners is under occupation of the State authorities, for which the State is duty bound to pay compensation to the petitioners. The averment of the State counsel that compensation has been determined by taking the date i.e. 30.03.1989 as the base, is liable to be rejected. The petitioners cannot be put to loss, if the State authorities have failed to take action as per law. It was duty of the State authorities to pursue the notifications issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Act and thereafter pass an Award accordingly. 7. Admittedly, Award was not passed and at this stage, the petitioners cannot be forced to accept compensation, which was due to them in the year 1989. 8. It is not in dispute that at present, road is in existence and operational at the spot. Taking note of the above-said facts, we allow this writ petition and direct the Secretary, PWD (B&R), State of Haryana, to initiate process to acquire land owned by the petitioners. The needful process shall be done within a period of four months from today. Taking note of the above-said facts, we allow this writ petition and direct the Secretary, PWD (B&R), State of Haryana, to initiate process to acquire land owned by the petitioners. The needful process shall be done within a period of four months from today. If the authorities fail to take action, as mentioned above, the right will be available to the petitioners to retrieve their land, which was used for constructing a road. 9. It is also made clear that if in a similar manner, for the road in question any other land owners land was used without acquisition, the necessary proceedings to acquire the same shall also be initiated. We are issuing this direction with a view to stop any further litigation. The authorities are at liberty to invoke the emergency provisions, as envisaged under Section 17 of the Act, to acquire the land in dispute. Copy of the order be given dasti under signatures of the Court Secretary of this Court.