← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/9452/2021disposed of

Joginder Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

2022-09-16Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal4 pages

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh 1.

Joginder Singh ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and Others ... Respondent(s) 2.

Civil Writ Petition No. 7893 of 2022 Jagjit Singh and Others ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and Others ... Respondent(s) 3.

Civil Writ Petition No. 7895 of 2022 Bagirath Singh ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and Others ... Respondent(s) 4.

Civil Writ Petition No. 8474 of 2022 Jasvir Singh ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and Others ... Respondent(s)

5.

Civil Writ Petition No. 9340 of 2022 Naib Singh ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and Others ... Respondent(s) 6.

Civil Writ Petition No. 9584 of 2022 Hartej Singh and Another ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and Others ... Respondent(s) AND 7.

Civil Writ Petition No. 11871 of 2022 Pargat Singh ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and Others ... Respondent(s) DATE OF DECISION: 16.09.2022 CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:

Mr. Rahul Vijay Singh Chugh, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (In CWP-9452-2021, CWP-7893-2022, CWP-9584-2022 and CWP-11871-2022).

Mr. Kanav Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (In CWP-7895-2022, CWP-8474-2022 and CWP-9340-2022).

Mr. Dhanesh Kumar Singal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1.

The challenge in all the writ petitions is to the recovery notices issued to the landowners, who stood deprived of their respective parcels of land on account of compulsory acquisition by the respondent No.1-State of Punjab. The State of Punjab claims that the petitioners have been paid in excess of what was required to be paid. On the other hand, the petitioners dispute that fact.

2.

As per Section 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 Act"), the dispute with regard to assessment of the market value, its entitlement and apportionment, if any, is required to be decided by the Civil Court (Reference Court), but no proceedings are stated to be pending before the Civil Court. 3.

In such a situation, the problem is required to be resolved. The Judicial officer is required to adjudicate upon the dispute with regard to the entitlement of the petitioners vis-a-vis the claim of the State Government. In such circumstances, the matter is forwarded to the senior most Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mansa, where the land was situated, to adjudicate upon the dispute in terms of the powers conferred upon him under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which includes the power to decide the entitlement of the persons to the compensation as well as apportionment of the compensation amongst the persons interested. Let the matter be concluded within a period of nine months from the date of their appearance. 4.

The parties, through their respective counsels, are directed to appear before the District Courts at Mansa on 17.10.2022.

5.

With the observations made above, all the writ petitions are disposed of. The miscellaneous application pending, if any, in all the writ petition(s) shall also stand disposed of.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge September 16, 2022 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No