Dismissed

Vas Dev Puri v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Mar 2011CWP/4136/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner claiming compensation for land acquired 33 years earlier. The court found that unclaimed compensation was already deposited in the treasury and held that the petitioner's prolonged delay and failure to approach the judiciary earlier precluded any relief.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish a valid case for relief after a delay of over three decades, given that compensation had already been deposited.

Vas Dev Puri Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

¶2

AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.4136 of 2011 Date of decision: 16.03.2011

Vas Devi Puri

…..Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab and others

¶8

……Respondents

¶9

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg

¶10

Present: Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)

¶12

C.M. Nos.3987-3989 of 2011

¶13

Applications allowed, documents are taken on record.

¶14

CWP No.3136 of 2011

¶15

As per facts given in this writ petition, 15 kanal of land owned by the father of the petitioner, was acquired way back by issuing the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) on 2.2.1977.

¶16

Record reveals that vide notifications, mentioned above, land was acquired for a public purpose, namely, ‘for allotment of the house-sites to the landless workers in the rural areas’.

¶17

It is apparent from the record that the petitioner’s father filed CWP No.4514 of 1978 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashment of the above said notifications, however, he failed. It is also on record that other land owners also

¶18

¶19

Civil Writ Petition No.4136 of 2011

¶20

challenged those notifications in this Court, remained unsuccessful and also failed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶21

It is case of the petitioner that no award has been passed qua the acquired land. It is further stated that earlier, Mr.Brij Lal Puri, father of the petitioner and after his death on 13.1.1980, the petitioner and his brother started asserting their claim to get compensation amount for the acquired land. To say that award was not passed, reliance has been placed upon some documents annexed with this writ petition.

¶22

On 8.3.2011, following order was passed:-

¶23

It is a case in which writ petition has been filed

¶24

after 33 years of acquisition of land by stating that the compensation has not been paid. On account of delay, probably, it will not be possible for Court to grant any relief to the petitioner unless he shows that the efforts were made in the meantime to claim his right.

¶25

On request, adjourned to 16.3.2011.

¶26

In response thereto, many documents have been put on record. Reading of documents Annexure P31 and P35 clearly indicates that the amount of unclaimed compensation of Rs.16,23,065.21 stands deposited in the Government Treasury under the Rural Housing Scheme by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Batala. If that is so, we have failed to understand that if an award was not passed, on what basis the amount of compensation was assessed. Documents further reveal that father of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner had gone to everybody including many political leader (Chief Minister etc.) during a span of 33 years, but did not prefer to knock the doors of the Court to get justice knowing fully well that it is available to them. After such a long time, we feel that the petitioner is not

¶27

¶28

Civil Writ Petition No.4136 of 2011

¶29

entitled to get any relief, who knows, the record might have been destroyed by now. No explanation worth the name has been given in this writ petition as to why the petitioner continued to wait for more than three decades in coming to the Court. No case is made out for interference.

¶30

Dismissed.

¶31

(Jasbir Singh) Judge

¶32

16.03.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge

Vas Dev Puri v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vas Dev Puri v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aas Mohammad and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Nihal Singh Vs Hindustan Petroleum Cor. Ltd. & Ors.

Teerath Singh Vs Hpc Ltd. & Anr.

Fateh Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Anar Kaur Vs State of Haryana

Bhinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.