The High Court dismissed an appeal by an appellant seeking permanent injunction against the State regarding agricultural land that was lawfully acquired with partial compensation paid. Finding no legal ground for interference, the court dismissed the appeal.
Appeal dismissed; no interference made in the judgment and decree under challenge.
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.
RSA No. 827 of 1988
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*********
RSA No. 827 of 1988 Date of decision : 16.1.2014
Smt. Sumitra Devi ........Appellant Vs. The State of Haryana ......Respondent
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
Present:Mr. APS Sandhu, Advocate, for the appellant None for the respondent State
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
Appellant-Sumitra Devi filed a suit for permanent injunction
with a prayer that the respondents be restrained from interfering in her possession over agricultural land, measuring 9 Kanals and 9 Marlas, description of which was given in the plaint, filed by her.
Upon notice, reply was filed through the Land Acquisition Collector, stating that after adopting appropriate procedure, as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land in question was acquired and possession was taken over as per law. It was further stated that compensation stood paid to the appellant/plaintiff.
The suit was decreed on 5.8.1987. The respondents went in appeal, which was allowed vide order dated 1.2.1988. Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, were set aside, suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.
Kumar Ashwani 2014.07.28 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-2-
RSA No. 827 of 1988
After hearing counsel for the appellant, this Court feels that no case is made out to interfere in the judgment and decree under challenge. Despite arguing at length, counsel for the appellant has failed to make out any law point, on the basis of which interference can be made in the judgment under challenge.
The Appellate Court below has rightly noticed that the land was acquired through the process of law and compensation stood paid to the appellant qua the land in question. It was also observed that during trial, the appellant had admitted receipt of compensation.
To decline relief to the appellant, the Appellate Court has observed as under :-
“From the statement of the plaintiff as well as Sher Singh DW1, it is evident that the plaintiff has already received compensation regarding the land of Khasra No. 76/8, while no compensation has been paid to her regarding the land of Khasra No. 76/13, because she had sold some land out of that land in favour of Gurdial Singh in April 1972 and so the compensation regarding that land was paid to Gurdial according to his share on 8.3.1977. The plaintiff was required to furnish affidavit as to whether she has further effected any sale to any other person like Gurdial so that the compensation be given to them, but she did not file any such affidavit and the payment was withheld. However, regarding the land of Khasra No. 76/8, she had admitted to have received the compensation. The land of both the Khasra numbers was acquired under the same Notification dated 7.1.1977 and by the same Award dated 17.2.1977 Sher Singh DW1 also stated that the plaintiff was moving application and filing papers in the acquisition proceedings and so he became acquainted with her signatures and writing. He also placed on record an
Kumar Ashwani 2014.07.28 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No. 827 of 1988
-3-
application in original dated 27.1.1977, which she moved before the Land Acquisition Officer, during the acquisition proceedings. In that application she mentioned that she is owner of land bearing Khasra No. 76/13 (1-16) and has constructed boundary wall around that plot. She has further mentioned that she had purchased that plot for setting up an industry i.e. the purpose for which it was being acquired by the State, and as such, the land be left out of acquisition. She also mentioned that in case, the land was acquired, she be given compensation at the rate of ` 30/-per square yard besides the expenses of boundary wall etc. As already mentioned, the Notification under Section 4 was issued on 6.1.1977, when this application was moved on 27.1.1977, while the award was passed on 17.2.1977. So, she participated in the acquisition proceedings and also filed objections. So, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was not given the notice regarding the acquisition of her land. Further notice under Section 4 is published in the Gazette and it is a notice to the general public. She has already received the compensation regarding major portion of her land, but her compensation regarding the land of Khasra No. 76/13 was withheld because she had sold some land out of Khasra No. 76/13 in favour of Gurdial to whom compensation was paid regarding his share and for ascertaining whether she has made any other sale out of her land or not, she furnished no affidavit to the Department that no further sale had been effected.
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that no sale was made in favour of Gurdial. The defendant has placed on record a certified copy of the registered sale deed which is Ex.D 3, showing that 17 Marlas of land i.e. 7 Marlas out of Khasra No. 76/8 and 10 Marlas out of Khasra No. 76/13 was sold by her in favour of Gurdial and Gurdial has already received the compensation of that land. Mutation in favour of Gurdial was not sanctioned because none turned up before the
Kumar Ashwani 2014.07.28 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No. 827 of 1988
-4-
Assistant Collector Ist Grade on the date of sanctioning the mutation. So, out of the acquired land measuring 9 Kanals 7 Marlas, the plaintiff has already received the compensation for 7 Kanals 11 Marlas and Gurdial has received the compensation for 17 Marlas of land. Her compensation for 1 Kanal 6 Marlas of land is lying deposited which she can obtain after satisfying to the Department that she has not effected any further sale in favour of any person.”
The Court has observed that Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 7.1.1977 and after issuance of final Notification, Award was passed on 17.2.1977. It was also noticed that she had participated in the acquisition proceedings by filing objections and even thereafter also. It was rightly held that before acquisition, notice of the same was given to the appellant.
No case is made out for interference in the order under
challenge.
Dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge
16.1.2014 Ashwani
Kumar Ashwani 2014.07.28 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the civil appellate court's judgment dismissing the suit for permanent injunction regarding acquired land warrants interference.
Whether the appellant's participation in acquisition proceedings and receipt of partial compensation establishes a prima facie case for injunction.
Sumitra Devi
The State of Haryana
Jasbir Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
