Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 764 (PNJ)

Ravinder Singh v. Union of India

2023-02-17

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, VIKRAM AGGARWAL

body2023
JUDGMENT Vikram Aggarwal, J. CM-1431-LPA-2019 Prayer in this application is for the condonation of delay of 1 day in filing the appeal. In view of the contents of the application which is duly supported by an affidavit of Mr. Jatinder Singh Gill, Advocate, the same is allowed and delay of 1 day in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA-602-2019 The appellants have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dated 18.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Bench, vide which the writ petition filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 18.12.2013 (Annexure P-13 with the writ petition) (reference to Annexures hereinafter shall indicate reference to Annexures with the writ petition) passed by respondent No.6 was partly allowed. 2. The appellants are purchasers of small parcels of land situated in Village Bir Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. This land, along-with other land was acquired, vide notification dated 20.04.2010, issued under section 20A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Railways Act'). After acquisition, Award dated 14.12.2011 was passed. However, compensation for the said land was not paid to the appellants on the ground that the land was not owned by the appellants or their vendors but was owned by the Gram Panchayat and it was 'Shamlat Deh'. Initially, vide order dated 05.11.1997 (Annexure P-1), the Collector/DDPO, Patiala held that the plaintiffs in that petition who are the vendors of the present appellants had been successful in proving that they are the true owners of the land in dispute and that the same is not 'Shamlat Deh The matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the Gram Panchayat of Village Dhamoli, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala lost the litigation. 3. After the Award for the acquired land having been announced, vide order dated 31.08.2012, payment of compensation to the present appellants was withheld on the ground that there was an ownership dispute. Vide report dated 21.11.2012 (Annexure P-9), the District Revenue Officer reiterated that the Gram Panchayat Dhamoli had lost its case up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and there was no stay order by any Court restraining the payment of compensation to the owners. Vide report dated 21.11.2012 (Annexure P-9), the District Revenue Officer reiterated that the Gram Panchayat Dhamoli had lost its case up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and there was no stay order by any Court restraining the payment of compensation to the owners. Since the compensation was not being paid, the appellants approached this Court by way of a writ petition bearing CWP No.1171 of 2013 titled as 'Ravinder Singh and others v. Union of India and others', which came to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 16.07.2013, holding that if the question whether the land was 'Shamlat Deh' or not had not been previously decided, the same be decided by the Collector under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PVCL Act'). It was also held that the petitioners therein would be at liberty to approach respondent No.6 for modification of the order vide which compensation had been withheld. 4. On an application for modification having been moved, respondent No.6, vide order dated 18.12.2013 (Annexure P-13), held that there was a dispute regarding ownership of the land and relegated the parties to the Civil Court. The LAC-cum-DRO, Patiala was directed to deposit the entire compensation with the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala and also refer the matter of title to the same Court for proper adjudication. The Award was upheld and petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act') was dismissed vide order dated 11.07.2016 (Annexure P-17). 5. In pursuance to the order dated 18.12.2013 (Annexure P-13), a reference was sent to the District Judge, Patiala and vide order dated 11.07.2016 (Annexure P-17), the Additional District Judge, Patiala held that whether the land was 'Shamlat Deh' or not was to be decided by the Collector under the provisions of the PVCL Act and, therefore, sent the matter back to the Collector. 6. As has been mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the order dated 18.12.2013 (Annexure P-13) was challenged by the appellants by way of a writ petition which came to be partly allowed, vide the present impugned judgment against which the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. 7. 6. As has been mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the order dated 18.12.2013 (Annexure P-13) was challenged by the appellants by way of a writ petition which came to be partly allowed, vide the present impugned judgment against which the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. 7. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Single Bench, though rightly held that the appellants were entitled to compensation, erred in holding that the question of title was required to be decided by the Civil Court. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the question of title had become final as the Gram Panchayat Dhamoli had lost the litigation up to the Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned counsel has referred to the orders Annexure P-1, Annexure P-2, Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-4 in this regard. It has been submitted that even in the earlier litigation filed before this Court, the Division Bench, vide order dated 16.07.2013 (Annexure P-11) had only directed that in case the question of title had not been decided, the same be decided by the Collector. It has been contended that it did not mean that there was a question of title because the same had been decided up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the learned Single Bench wrongly placed reliance upon the provisions of Section 20H of the 1989 Act which relates only to apportionment whereas, Section 20F would be applicable in the present case. Learned senior counsel has referred to each and every annexure with regard to the previous litigation, the notification for acquisition, the Award and other orders passed from time to time and has contended that the appellants have been suffering for no fault of theirs. 8. Learned senior counsel has argued that though the Additional District Judge erred in not exercising jurisdiction, he had rightly referred the matter to the Collector and not to the Civil Court, even if it is assumed, for the sake of arguments that the question of title was to be decided. Learned senior counsel has argued that the question of title had to be decided as per the provisions of the PVCL Act and not by the Civil Court and that the jurisdiction of Civil Court would be barred in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the PVCL Act. 9. Learned senior counsel has argued that the question of title had to be decided as per the provisions of the PVCL Act and not by the Civil Court and that the jurisdiction of Civil Court would be barred in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the PVCL Act. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents has submitted that there is a heavy amount of compensation which is lying undisbursed because the question of title has not been decided. It has been submitted that after the decision of the Collector on 05.11.1997, vide order Annexure P-1, the appeal before the Commissioner, then before this Court and finally before the Hon'ble Apex Court were not decided on merits but were rejected on technical grounds. It has been argued that under the circumstances, it cannot be contended by the appellants that the question of title had been decided finally. Learned counsel has submitted that there was a clear-cut finding in the order dated 18.12.2013 (Annexure P-13) which is a detailed and speaking order that the names of the appellants or their predecessors had wrongly been entered in the revenue records and, therefore, the question of title was required to be decided. Learned counsel have contended that the learned Single Bench did not commit any illegality in relegating the parties to the Civil Court because it has to be decided as to whether it is the appellants or the Gram Panchayat or any other interested persons who would be entitled for the compensation. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the voluminous record, we find no reason to interfere in the judgment of learned Single Bench. 11. The compensation deposited for the land situated in Village Bir Rajpura was to the tune of nearly Rs.30 crores which in fact became little more than 30 crores after the passing of the supplementary Award. It is this amount which has to be disbursed to the rightful claimants. The dispute with regard to the ownership of the land started way back in the year 1997 and by way of order dated 05.11.1997 (Annexure P-1), the Collector/DDPO held as under:- "I have heard both the counsels for the parties at length and have perused the record file thoroughly and have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs possession through their father namely Sadhu Singh was there prior to 26.1.1950. Therefore they are the true owners of this land. They are only ones who have made this disputed barran land (Banjar Kadim) into cultivable land. The mutation of the said disputed land has been wrongly made in the name of Nagar Panchayat. The khewatdars of village had divided among themselves all the shamlat land and each and every khewatdar was owner in possession of his own share. Therefore the disputed land is not shamlat deh. While allowing the petition of the plaintiffs I hereby declare that the disputed land is in the ownership of plaintiffs. " 12. This decision came to be challenged by way of an appeal. However, since there was no resolution by the Gram Panchayat authorising the Sarpanch to file the appeal and even incomplete copy of the impugned order having been placed on record, it was held vide order dated 06.05.1998 (Annexure P-2) that the appeal was not maintainable and the same was dismissed. While dismissing the appeal, it was held as under:- "After hearing the contentions raised on behalf of both the parties, I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that in this case a resolution by the Gram Panchayat authorizing the sarpanch to file the appeal was required to be passed as laid down under rule 16 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964. This infirmity is further compounded by placing on record by the appellant an incomplete copy of the impugned order. On both these counts this appeal is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. " 13. A writ petition was filed before this Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 12.10.1998 (Annexure P-3) on the same ground. SLP was also dismissed vide order dated 17.12.1998 (Annexure P-4). It is, therefore, evident that though the Collector/DDPO had held that the appellants (their vendors) were the owners of the land in dispute, it appears that the Gram Panchayat deliberately did not lay a proper challenge to the said order. The matter was taken up to the Hon'ble Apex Court without curing the defect noticed in first appeal. The nexus between the Gram Panchayat and the parties concerned is too clear to be missed. To contend that the question of title was decided up to the Hon'ble Apex Court is in itself erroneous. 14. The matter was taken up to the Hon'ble Apex Court without curing the defect noticed in first appeal. The nexus between the Gram Panchayat and the parties concerned is too clear to be missed. To contend that the question of title was decided up to the Hon'ble Apex Court is in itself erroneous. 14. It is strange that nobody thought of rectifying the blunder committed by the Gram Panchayat at the relevant time. However, at the same time, it is heartening to note that eventually the authorities did not permit public money to go into some hands without making sure that those hands deserved that public money. Strangely the order dated 31.08.2012, vide which the Commissioner had stayed the disbursement of compensation has not seen the light of the day, thus, though the same has been referred to in many communications. After this Court having issued directions in CWP No.1171 of 2013, vide order dated 16.07.2013 (Annexure P-11) and an application for modification of the order dated 31.08.2012 (Annexure P-12) having been filed, it appears that the authorities realised the gravity of the situation. The matter was examined in great detail by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, vide order dated 18.12.2013 (Annexure P-13). It arrived at a categoric finding that the Gram Panchayat of Village Dhamoli pursued a futile litigation just to favour private persons and it, therefore, pursued the litigation with regard to the ownership of the land in a casual manner. The Commissioner, Patiala Division held that the cuttings in the revenue record wherein the possession was shown to be of the vendors of the appellants wherein originally it was shown to be of the Nagar Panchayat were illegal. The Commissioner, therefore, came to the conclusion that it would not be possible to pay compensation to the present appellants and there were two other claimants namely the Municipal Council, Rajpura and Gram Panchayat, Village Dhamoli. The parties were relegated to the Civil Court holding that all three claimants could get their rights adjudicated before the Civil Court. 15. The learned Single Bench, after an in depth analysis of the long-drawn litigation and the provisions of various statutes, rightly came to the conclusion that the Reference Court had failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it and the Commissioner had also erred in deciding the question of title and holding that the appellants were not entitled to the compensation. 16. 16. Section 20 (F) of the 1989 Act lays down as under: - "20-F. Determination of amount payable as compensation.- (1) Where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority. (2) The competent authority shall make an award under this section within a period of one year from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse: Provided that the competent authority may, after the expiry of the period of limitation, if he is satisfied that the delay has been caused due to unavoidable circumstances and for the reasons to be recorded in writing, he may make the award within an extended period of six months: Provided further that where an award is made within the extended period, the entitled person shall, in the interest of justice, be paid an additional compensation for the delay in making of the award, every month for the period so extended, at the rate of not less than five per cent, of the value of the award, for each month of such delay. (3) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition, an amount calculated at ten per cent, of the amount determined under sub-section (1),for that land. (4) Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3), as the case may be, the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which shall be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired. (5) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of section 20D, before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective interest in such land. (6) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or as the case may be, sub-section (3) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government in such manner as may be prescribed. (7) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act. (8) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount of compensation under subsection (1) or sub-section (6), as the case may be, shall take into consideration- (a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 20A; (b) the damage, if any sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land; (c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings; (d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change. (9) In addition to the market-value of the land as above provided, the competent authority or the arbitrator, as the case may be, shall in every case award a sum of sixty per centum on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. " 17. Section 20 (H) of the 1989 Act lays down as under:- "20-H Deposit and payment of amount.- (1) The amount determined under section 20F shall be deposited by the Central Government, in such manner as may be prescribed by that Government, with the Competent Authority before taking possession of the land. (2) As soon as may be after the amount has been deposited under sub-section (1), the Competent Authority shall on behalf of the Central Government pay the amount to the person or persons entitled thereto. (2) As soon as may be after the amount has been deposited under sub-section (1), the Competent Authority shall on behalf of the Central Government pay the amount to the person or persons entitled thereto. (3) Where several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited under sub-section (1), the Competent Authority shall determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them. (4) If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Competent Authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. (5) Where the amount determined under section 20F by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the Competent Authority, the arbitrator may award interest at nine per cent per annum on such excess amount from the date of taking possession under section 201 till the date of actual deposit thereof. (6) Where the amount determined by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the Competent Authority, the excess amount together with interest, if any, awarded under sub-section (5) shall be deposited by the Central Government, in such manner as may be prescribed by that Government, with the Competent Authority and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (4) shall apply to such deposit. " 18. Section 20H (4) makes it amply clear that where the dispute was with regard to the apportionment of the amount, or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof was payable, the competent authority would refer the dispute to the decision of the principal court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction, the land was situated. Section 20F would apply when compensation of the acquired land is to be assessed and not where there is a dispute with regard to different persons claiming the compensation may be on the basis of title or any other basis. The learned Single Bench, therefore, rightly held that the principal court of jurisdiction, which as per Section 24 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 was the Court of the District Judge would be duty bound to decide the question of title in the present case. The learned Single Bench, therefore, rightly held that the principal court of jurisdiction, which as per Section 24 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 was the Court of the District Judge would be duty bound to decide the question of title in the present case. The provisions of the PVCL Act would not apply once the land has been acquired and the matter relates to payment of compensation. The same would apply if there is a normal dispute with regard to title of a common land. The learned Single Bench also rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nirmal Sinsh v. Union of India, 2012 (4) RCR (Civil) 44. in which it was held as under:- "8. It is true that the Act is a special statute which has clothed the Central Government with the power to acquire any land for a public purpose, which is required for building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway or part thereof But many provisions of the Act are akin to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the 1894 Act'). A perusal of Sections 3A, 3C and 3D of the Act would show that they are similar to Sections 4, 5A and 6 of the 1894 Act respectively in their contents and intendment. Even Section 311(3) and (4) of the Act are somewhat similar to Sections 18 and 30 respectively of the 1894 Act. Likewise, further provisions like Sections 3H and 3G of the Act are equivalent to Sections 16 and 11 of the 1894 Act. Then it follows that the Competent Authority under the Act designated by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would not be clothed with the power to adjudicate the claim of apportionment made by the parties in respect of the land for which notifications for acquisition have been issued under the Act. Under sub-section (3) of Section 3H of the Act, the Competent Authority may determine the persons who would be entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them where several persons make claim in respect of the amount deposited under sub-section (1) of Section 3H of the Act. This Section does not talk about any dispute between several claims, which in fact, has been specifically dealt with in sub-section (4) of Section 3H of the Act. This Section does not talk about any dispute between several claims, which in fact, has been specifically dealt with in sub-section (4) of Section 3H of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 3H of the Act opens with the words 'If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable', then the Competent Authority nominated by the State Government like respondent No. 4 is under obligation to refer the dispute to the decision of the principal Civil Court of original limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. Therefore, we are of the view that under the garb of power to determine the persons who in the opinion of the Competent Authority would be entitled to receive the amount of compensation, which is in dispute, the Competent Authority could not have entered upon adjudication of the dispute and a reference should have been made to the Court of competent jurisdiction. Once the aforesaid legal position is clear from the reading of the provisions itself, the consequence of determining the apportionment between the petitioner and the private respondents have to be left to the adjudication of the District Judge." 19. The argument that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be barred as per the provisions of Section 13 of the PVCL Act also, therefore, would not be worth any merit once the land had been acquired and the dispute had arisen as to who would be entitled to the amount of compensation. The judgment in the case of The Gram Panchayat Vittaee Kariha v. The Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Juttundur and others. 1989(1) R.R.R.569 and Naurang Singh through LRs v. State of Punjab. 1997(1) RCR (Civil) 660 relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants would, therefore, not apply to the present case. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and accordingly dismiss the same. CM-1432-LPA-2019, CM-1742-LPA-2020 and CM-2491-LPA-2021 Since the appeal stands decided, no orders are required to be passed in these applications and the same are disposed of as having been rendered in-fructuous.