Balmat & Ors. v. The State of Haryana & Ors.

plaintiff on the grounds alleged in paragraph 30 of the plaint? OPP Whether plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP Whether suit is bad for want of notice under section 80

3. CPC? OPD

4. Relief.?” When deciding issue No.1, the trial Court observed as under:- “12. In this way, it is clear that the defendants have fully controverted the allegations of the plaint. The plaintiff appeared as PW1 on 20.4.1987 and again on 23.5.1989 but he failed to state as to how and which of the provisions of the Act or Rules was not complied with. As I have already stated above while discussing ground no.(iv) and (v) that notices of notification under sections 4, 6 and 9 were given to the plaintiff by the defendant department before acquisition and opportunity of being heard was provided to the plaintiff. He raised objections vide application of which Ex.D-5 is the copy and after that application, the land acquisition officer had passed the award on 27.3.1984. Had there been any merit in the objection of the plaintiff and his brother, the same would have been taken into consideration but because the objections of the plaintiff were withhold any merit, therefore, they were rightly over ruled by the Land Acquisition Collector. The land was acquired for urgently, therefore, vide notification of which Ex.D7 is the copy. The Govt. made it clear that the provisions of section 17(2)(c)and 17(4), 17(5) (a) of the Act were not Civil Writ Petition No.18268 of 2010 3 applicable. In the same manner, the DWs have also made it clear that the compliance of every mandatory provisions of the Act and the rules were made while acquiring the land in dispute and passing the award. The plaintiff has not referred to me any evidence which can go to show that the compliance of any mandatory provisions of the Act was not made. In these circumstances, I do not see any merit in the grounds pleaded in para No.(vii), (viii) and (ix) of para No.3 of the plaint. Therefore, I hereby over rule these objections.

13. In grounds no.(x), (xi) and (xii) of para No.3 of the plaint, it has been pleaded by the plaintiff that no compensation of the share is the plaintiff in the land in dispute has either been assessed or paid to him. Even his name has not been included in the award. The compensation has not been paid to the plaintiff or deposited in the treasury in his name. The defendants in the respective paras of their written statement have pleaded that the name of the plaintiff has been inadvertently written as Kala instead of Fateh due to typographical mistake and plaintiff can receive the amount of compensation of his share by applying to the land Acquisition Collector and the amount of compensation has been deposited in the Treasury.

14. Admittedly, name of the plaintiff was not mentioned in the award dated 27.3.1984 copy of which is Ex.P2. In this award at page No.3 at S.No.2, the name of Kala son of Devatia has been mentioned and an amount of Rs.7568.44 has been awarded against his name but when it was brought to the Civil Writ Petition No.18268 of 2010 4 notice of Land Acquisition Collector, he issued a corrigendum of which Ex.D2 is the copy on 10.5.1988 and made it clear that the name of Kala son of Devatia has been written in place of Fateh sons of Devatia. It has come in the evidence that Devatia had only two sons namely Fateh and Chandgi and he had no son having name Kala. Same thing is emerging out from other documents available on the record. Therefore, it is also clear from Ex.D1 to D5 that the plaintiff had been taking part in the proceedings of the Land Acquisition. He was served with a notice and he and his brother Chandgi filed objection. Therefore, in my view, if the name of plaintiff was wrongly mentioned in the award of which Ex.P2 is the copy, it does not mean that the award was passed behind his back. The defendants have submitted an explanation that his name was mentioned in the award due to typographical mistake and since the mistake was pointed out or came in the notice of the Land Acquisition Officer, he issued, corrigendum of which Ex.D-2 is the copy. Thus, in view of this evidence, I am of the opinion that no prejudice has been caused to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is at liberty to withdraw the amount mentioned in award against his name as disclosed in corrigendum of which Ex.D-2 is the copy. Thus, in view of this evidence, I am of the opinion that no prejudice has been caused to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is at liberty to withdraw the amount mentioned in award against his name as disclosed in corrigendum of which Ex.D2 is the copy, from the treasury in due process of law. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the proceedings of Civil Writ Petition No.18268 of 2010 5 acquisition of land had not been taken place behind the back of the plaintiff. In the same way, compensation has also been awarded and the same has been deposited in the treasury and this being so, the ground pleaded in sub para (x), (xi) and (xii) of the plaint also do not help the plaintiff.” It was also noticed by the trial Court that father of the petitioner had been participating in the acquisition proceedings. Suit was dismissed on 11.4.1990. Appeal filed by father of the petitioners was also dismissed on 12.12.1990. The appellate Court below gave finding on merit that the issuance of notification under Section 4 read with section 17 of the Act was perfectly justified. Father of the petitioners came to this Court by filing RSA No.697 of 1991, which was dismissed by this Court on

20.9.2010 by observing that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain any challenge to the acquisition of land under the provisions of the Act. Be that as it may, all the objections raised by father of the petitioners to the acquisition were dealt with and decided by the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class at Jind and thereafter, those were discussed and negatived by the appellate Court. The land was acquired way back in the year 1983. Award was passed in the year 1984. It appears that an attempt has been made by the petitioners/ their father only to delay the proceedings. No case is made out for interference at this stage. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge

07.10.2010 (Augustine George Masih) Judge