Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2686 (PNJ)

Harminder Singh v. U. T. Chandigarh

2023-09-05

KULDEEP TIWARI, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2023
JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. Through the instant petition, the petitioners challenge the validity of a notification, as became issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter for short called as the ‘Act of 1894’). Moreover, the petitioners also make a challenge to the validity of issuance of a notification under Section 6 of the ‘Act of 1894’. 2. The above notifications became respectively issued on 31.01.1992 (Annexure P-3) and on 29.01.1993 (Annexure P-4). 3. The makings of the above notifications resulted in an award becoming pronounced on 10.09.1998 (Annexure P-5) by the Land Acquisition Collector, U.T. Chandigarh. Therefore, the said award is also asked to be quashed and set aside. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends, that the acquired land measuring 4 kanals 3 marlas, as is enclosed in Khasra No. 60//40 in Hadbast No. 375, Manimajra, is situated in a thickly populated area surrounded by houses and shops. Therefore, it is contended that the parcel of land (supra) was not required to be subjected to acquisition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, has also argued, that since in respect of similarly situated lands, the respondent concerned, as unfolded by Annexure P-8, proceeded to in terms of Section 24 (2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter for short refer to as the ‘Act of 2013’), thus release those lands, as, mentioned in Annexure P-8, hence to the land owners concerned. Therefore, on parity with those estate holders qua whom the acquired lands became released, the petitioners also claim similar relief. Reasons for rejecting the above submissions. 6. The primary reason for rejecting the above submission becomes founded upon the factum, that the instant petition is hit by gross pervasive vices of delays and laches. The reason for making the above conclusion becomes sparked from the factum, that the challenge to the afore, has been made after almost thirty years elapsing, since the launching of acquisition proceedings under the ‘Act of 1894’. Resultantly, the instant petition but on the said ground of delay and laches, is liable to be dismissed. 7. The reason for making the above conclusion becomes sparked from the factum, that the challenge to the afore, has been made after almost thirty years elapsing, since the launching of acquisition proceedings under the ‘Act of 1894’. Resultantly, the instant petition but on the said ground of delay and laches, is liable to be dismissed. 7. Even the Hon’ble Apex Court in a judgment rendered in case titled M/s Star Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1996) 11 SCC 698 , has in the relevant paragraph of its verdict, paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, thus declared that any belated challenge, as made to the relevant fully terminated acquisition proceedings, thus is hit by the vices of delay and laches, and thereby too, the said belated motion is but required to be declared as misconstituted: “Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner had no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings; as soon as it came to know of the acquisition, it had challenged the validity of the acquisition proceedings and, therefore, it furnishes cause of action to the petitioner. He further contends that the writ petition could not be dismissed on the ground of laches but was required to be considered on merits. We find no force in the contention. Any encumbrance created by the erstwhile owner of the land after publication of the notification under Section 4(1) does not bind the State if the possession of land is already taken over after the award came to be passed. The land stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances under Section 16. In Gurmukh Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (8) SCC 208, this Court had held that a subsequent purchaser is not entitled to challenge the legality of the acquisition proceedings on the ground of lack of publication of the notification. In Y.N. Garg vs. State of Rajasthan, 1996 (1) SCC 284 and Sneh Prabha vs. State of U.P. 1996 (7) SCC 325, this Court had held the alienation made by the erstwhile owner of the land after publication of the notification under Section 4(1), do not bind either the State Government or the beneficiary for whose benefit the land was acquired. The purchaser does not acquire any valid title. Even the colour of title claimed by the purchaser was void. The purchaser does not acquire any valid title. Even the colour of title claimed by the purchaser was void. The beneficiary is entitled to have absolute possession free from encumbrances. In U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman and Another vs. M/s Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. and Others, (1996) 1 SCC 124, this Court had further held that the purchaser of the property, after the notification under Section 4(1) was published, is devoid of right to challenge the validity of the notification or irregularity in taking possession of the land before publication of the declaration under Section 6. As regards laches in approaching the Court, this Court has been consistently taking the view starting from State of Madhya Pradesh and Another vs. Bhailal Bhai and Others, AIR 1964 SC 1006 wherein a Constitution Bench had held that it is not either desirable or expedient to lay down a rule of universal application but the unreasonable delay denies to the petitioner, the discretionary extraordinary remedy of mandamus, certiorari or any other relief. The same was view reiterated in catena of decisions, viz. Rabindranath Bose and Others vs. The Union of India and Others, 1970 (1) SCC 84 , State of Mysore and Others vs. Narsimha Ram Naik, AIR 1975 SC 2190 , Aflatoon and Another vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1975) 4 SCC 285 , M/s. Tilokchand Motichand and Others vs. H.B. Munshi, Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay and Another, AIR 1970 SC 898 , State of Tamil Nadu and Others vs. L. Krishnan and Others, JT 1995 (8) SC 1, Improvement Trust, Faridkot and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others, 1987 Supp. SCC 608, State of Punjab and Others vs. Hari Om Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. 1987 Supp. SCC 687, Market Committee, Hodal vs. Krishan Murari and Others, JT 1995 (8) SC 494 and State of Haryana vs. Dewan Singh, 1996 (7) SCC 394 wherein this Court had held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the acquisition proceedings. This Court in the latest judgment in Municipal Corporation of Great Bombay vs. The Industrial Development and Investment Co. This Court in the latest judgment in Municipal Corporation of Great Bombay vs. The Industrial Development and Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Others, JT 1996 (8) SC 16, reviewed the entire case law and held that the person who approaches the Court belatedly will be told that laches close the gates of the Court for him to question the legality of the notification under Section 4(1), declaration under Section 6 and the award of the Collector under Section 11.” 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners, though has claimed parity, thus on anvil of Annexure P-8, with those estate holders qua whom the acquired lands became released. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the above claimed parity with those estate holders, as, detailed in Annexure P-8, is rather a mis claimed parity. Primarily for the reason that as revealed by Annexure P-6, rapat possession of the acquired lands became assumed on 17.09.1998. Moreover, when it is also stated, at the bar, by the learned counsel for the respondent, that compensation amount has been tendered in terms of Section 31 of the ‘Act of 1894’ for thus it becoming amenable for being released to the petitioners. 9. Consequently, when thereby accomplishment, thus is secured qua the twin statutory ingredients, as expounded in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case titled Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129 and as relating to: (a) the necessity of tendering of compensation for its becoming claimed for being released to the landowners concerned. (b) the assumption of possession being evidently assumed by the acquiring authority, thus through drawing of a Rapat Roznamcha. 10. Therefore, the above accomplishments of the apposite twin statutory ingredients but obviously displace the petitioners from claiming parity with the estate holders qua whom the lapsing mandate (supra) became affirmatively applied, nor also the petitioners in the instant case, can thus claim that in terms of the provisions embodied in Section 24 (2) of the ‘Act of 2013’ the acquisition proceedings as became initiated qua the writ lands, thus becoming declared to become lapsed. Final order of this Court. 11. In aftermath, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, the same being completely frivolous, thus is required to be dismissed with costs. Therefore, the same is dismissed with costs of Rs. Final order of this Court. 11. In aftermath, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, the same being completely frivolous, thus is required to be dismissed with costs. Therefore, the same is dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be forthwith deposited by the petitioners with the ‘Himachal Pradesh Aapada Raahat Kosh 2023’ for mitigating the natural disaster in the State concerned. 12. The impugned notifications and the consequent thereto award are maintained and affirmed. 13. Since the main case itself has been decided, thus, all the pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.