In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the state to grant compensation equal to amounts awarded to others for adjacent land acquisition. The court dismissed the petition, noting the petitioner had not challenged the award and no case was made out for belated interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 13521 of 2010 Date of decision: 2.8.2010
Surat Singh
…..Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and others
……Respondents
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih
Present: Mr.Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
This order will dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP Nos.13521 and 13546 both of 2010, involving same questions of law and facts. For facility of reference, facts are being taken from CWP No.13521 of 2010.
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the petitioner same amount of compensation, which was awarded to Mehtab Singh and others, whose land was also acquired along with land of the petitioners. To say so, reliance has been placed on orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mehtab Singh and others v. State of Haryana (P1) and Jai Ram v. The State of Haryana and another (P2).
After hearing counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that at the instance of the petitioner, interference cannot be made as prayed for in this writ petition.
2
Civil Writ Petition No. 13521 of 2010
It is apparent from the records that land of the petitioner and others was proposed to be acquired in the year 1977. Award was passed on 18.2.1977. The petitioner and others moved applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act). At their instance, amount of compensation was enhanced. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner thereafter did not agitate the matter regarding compensation any further, whereas to the contrary, Mehtab Singh, Jai Ram and others, the right holders filed appeals in this Court, which appear to have been disposed of in the year 1982. Thereafter they went to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition (Civil) in the years 1984/85. In the case of Mehtab Singh’s (supra), compensation was enhanced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 30.8.1994. Appeal filed by Jai Ram came up for consideration in the year 2001 and vide order dated 18.9.2001, compensation was enhanced in his favour also. The petitioner thereafter woke up, went to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and on 7.9.2009, following order was passed in his case:-
“We are of the view that it would be better for the petitioner to move the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution instead of this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, this order will not prevent the petitioner from moving the High Court. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case.”
It is how, this writ petition has been filed.
Counsel for the petitioner has failed to refer to any provision of law, under which, the petitioner can claim similar treatment, which had been
3
Civil Writ Petition No. 13521 of 2010
given to Mehtab Singh and Jai Ram etc. The petitioner was satisfied with grant of compensation by the Land Acquisition Tribunal and never challenged the same. No case is made out for interference at this belated stage.
Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 02.08.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner who accepted compensation without challenge is entitled to similar treatment as other right holders who actively agitated the matter.
Whether the High Court can interfere at a belated stage to grant compensation equal to that awarded to others in identical circumstances.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mehtab Singh and others v. State of HaryanaReferred¶12
Mehtab Singh and others v. State of Haryana
Jai Ram v. The State of Haryana and anotherReferred¶12
Jai Ram v. The State of Haryana and another
Surat Singh
State of Haryana
Jasbir Singh
Augustine George Masih
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
