Disposed

Chanchal Bala Ghai v. the Lac Cum Sdm Phagwara

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Feb 2014CWP/13938/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitions filed under Article 226 seeking a reference under the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation was disposed of. The court directed the reference application to be listed in motion matters only after the pending stay application is decided, noting that the petitioner's title remains in question.

What did the court decide?

Directed RSA No.1223 of 2007 be listed before Hon’ble R.K. Garg, J.; reference to be made only upon petitioner's success in proving ownership.

Chanchal Bala Ghai Vs the Lac Cum Sdm Phagwara — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.13938 of 2004 (O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 18.02.2014

Chanchal Bala Ghai

…..Petitioner

versus

The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-S.D.M., Phagwara

¶7

.....Respondent

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL, CHI EF JUSTI CE HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE ARUN PALLI

¶9

Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with

¶10

Mr. Manipal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Mr. Alok Jain, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab

¶12

SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL, CHI EF JUSTI CE : (Oral)

¶13

The stated land of the petitioner was sought to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the said Act. The possession of the land was taken and award was passed on 26.12.2002. The petitioner sought enhancement of the compensation after withdrawing 80% of the compensation deposited.

¶14

It is at the aforesaid stage that a controversy was sought to be raised qua the ownership of the land, i.e. , it belongs to the Canal & Irrigation Department and that even compensation released to the petitioner was illegal. A demand notice dated 8.1.2003 was, thus, issued seeking re-deposit of the compensation by the petitioner. This gave a cause for the petitioner to file a civil suit challenging the said notice and claiming ownership of the land before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phagwara, who decreed the suit vide judgm ent dated 8.11.2005 holding

¶15

Chand Parkash 2014.02.18 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CW P- 13938 - 2004

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

the petitioner to be the exclusive owner in possession of the suit land when it was acquired. The appeal preferred against it by the departm ent was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala on 22.1.2007. RSA No.1223 of 2007 against the same is stated to be admitted while staying the operation of the impugned judgm ent.

¶19

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India m aking the grievance of the respondent’s not sending the application made by the petitioner under Sections 18 and 19 of the said Act to the Reference Court. Notice was issued on this petition on 10.9.2004 and on 9.12.2005 learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to place further m aterial on record which prayer was acceded to and the matter was adjourned sine die , to be listed when the needful was done. Thereafter, for 8½ years, no endeavour has been m ade to get the matter listed nor any material filed.

¶20

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter can be decided without the additional material as he is only seeking a reference under Sections 18 and 19 of the said Act. However, in our view, such a reference would not be permissible as the very title of the petitioner is in question in the RSA even though the petitioner may have succeeded before two forums, more so when the operation of those judgments has been stayed. The panacea for the predicam ent in this case is only a decision on the RSA as only that can lend clarity to the issue of ownership and if the petitioner succeeds, there would be no impediment in making the reference, failing which the petitioner would have no right.

¶21

The original dispute is quite old, the value of the money goes down, however, the petitioner is not receiving compensation for the land on account of the issue raised about the title.

¶22

Chand Parkash 2014.02.18 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CW P- 13938 - 2004

¶24

- 3 -

¶25

In view of the aforesaid, let RSA No.1223 of 2007 be listed

¶26

before Hon’ble R.K. Garg, J. on 05.03.2014 in motion matters.

¶27

If the petitioner succeeds then the respondent would make a reference, failing which there would be no occasion to make the reference.

¶28

The petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶29

( SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL ) CHI EF JUSTI CE

¶30

18.02.2014 ( ARUN PALLI ) parkash* JUDGE

¶31

Chand Parkash 2014.02.18 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Chanchal Bala Ghai v. the Lac Cum Sdm Phagwara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chanchal Bala Ghai v. the Lac Cum Sdm Phagwara

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

Madan Lal Vs UOI & Ors.

Movement Against State Repression Vs Union of India and Ors.

Super Industrial Corporation Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Union of India etc. Vs Pardeep Jain etc.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Central Administrative & Ors.

Lila Krishan Vs State of Haryana and Ors.