Dr.A.K.Sinha & Anr. v. Union Territory Chandigarh Administration & Ors.

“In view of the averments made in the writ petition itself, it is apparent that the petitioners have challenged the acquisition proceedings after the award was announced on

5.2.1993. The question whether writ petition after the award was announced and the land vests in the State Government came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in case reported as Narinjan Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another, AIR 1986 Punjab and Haryana 202 and subsequently before a Division Bench of this Court in case reported as M/s Convertaid Engineers Private Limited and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2003 (1) P.L.R. 634 wherein it has been held that after the award is announced, writ petition is not maintainable. In M/s Convertaid Engineers Private Limited’s case (supra), it has been held that even if compensation amount is not paid, the land-owners have to take recourse to recover the compensation in terms of Section 34 of the Act but writ petition challenging the acquisition is not maintainable.” Appellants thereafter filed a Letters Patent Appeal, which was dismissed as withdrawn and then a review application was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 22.8.2008.

Thereafter, how this appeal has been filed. When notice of motion was issued on 15.10.2009, following order was passed by this Court:- “It is not a matter of dispute, that Civil Writ Petition No.15167 of 1993 had been filed by the petitioners – appellants after the announcement of the award under Section Letters Patent Appeal No.246 of 2009 3 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As such, the notifications vide which the land allegedly owned by the appellants was acquired, was clearly beyond the purview of the jurisdiction of this Court in view of the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Great Bombay Vs. Industrial Development and Investment Co. (P) Ltd., AIR 1997 (SC) 482. This proposition of law is acknowledged by the learned counsel for the appellants as well. The sole controversy now raised by the appellants, is that inspite of the acquisition of their land, no compensation has been released to them.

Release of compensation claimed by the appellants, has been denied on the account of the fact, that the land in question does not vest in the appellants, inasmuch as, the same vests in the provincial government. This claim at the hands of the respondents, is based on a civil court judgement and decree dated 12.10.1991. In case, the aforesaid decree exists and the provincial government is indeed the owner of the acquired land of (which compensation is claimed by the appellants), then obviously the appellants would have no further cause. Learned counsel for the respondents states, that he will place on the record of this case a copy of the judgement and decree dated 12.10.1991 on the basis of which the respondents have contested the ownership rights of the appellants on the land in question. Letters Patent Appeal No.246 of 2009 4 Learned counsel for the respondents is, accordingly, directed to place on the record of this case the aforesaid judgement and decree dated 12.10.1991 within two weeks from today.

List again on 4.11.2009. Be shown in the urgent list.” On merit, prayer of the appellants to quash the acquisition, was declined, however, notice was issued for payment of compensation. Thereafter, many interim orders were passed and on 19.4.2010, it was observed as under:- “1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge dated 19.12.2006, dismissing the writ petition against acquisition proceedings, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The land of the appellants was acquired for setting up nurseries in the Union Territory, Chandigarh and award dated

5.2.1993 (Annexure P4) was passed and compensation was ordered to be paid. They filed writ petition challenging the acquisition on the ground that they were not given compensation. The writ petition was dismissed with the observations that mere non-payment of compensation was no ground to quash the acquisition proceedings.

On 15.10.2010, learned counsel for the respondents made a statement that in view of the decree dated 12.10.1991, the land in question vested in the State and there was no question of any compensation being given. Letters Patent Appeal No.246 of 2009 5

Today, learned counsel for the State says that the earlier statement was not correct. There is no decree in favour of the State. There was an order of attachment against the appellants on account of which compensation was not disbursed to them. He seeks time to furnish relevant particulars to the appellants and also to file reply to averments in the grounds of appeal, to the extent that such grounds were not taken in the writ petition.

Adjourned to 14.7.2010, as prayed.” Thereafter, on 14.7.2010, appellants’ counsel sought time to get instructions as to whether in the pending criminal case, appellants have been discharged or not. Then on 17.8.2010, following order was passed by this Court:- “On 14.7.2010, following order was passed by this Court:-

Counsel for the petitioners states that the alleged attachment of the property shown to have been made vide letter dated 15.11.1991 (R-1) was made in pursuance of some order passed in a criminal matter pending against the petitioner at Delhi. Counsel states that he has received information in that case, the petitioner was discharged. He wants to verify this fact. On request, adjourned to 17.8.2010. The respondents shall also produce in Court the calculation sheet showing as to how much amount is due to the petitioners for their land, which was acquired and Letters Patent Appeal No.246 of 2009 6 how much amount was sent/ deposited with the Collector.

Shri Chibbar states that the petitioner was acquitted so far as criminal proceedings are concerned.