Karnail Singh v. State Of Punjab & ANR

CWP No. 26719 of 2016 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 26719 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision: 1.3.2017 Karnail Singh .. Petitioner v.

State of Punjab and another .. Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU

Present:

Mr. J. P. S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab with Mr. B. S. Thind, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. ..

Rajesh Bindal J.

This order will dispose of a bunch of petitions bearing CWP Nos. 26719, 26837 and 26873 of 2016, as common questions of law and facts are involved.

In the cases in hand, the land owned by the petitioners was acquired for the purpose of setting up of Peona Power Plant at village Gobindpura, District Mansa, vide notification dated 15.10.2010 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The landowners had accepted the compensation and did not raise any dispute in terms of the policy framed by the Government, where they were entitled to additional sum as 'No Litigation' incentive. The only grievance is that the amount of compensation was required to be paid immediately on announcement of award by the Collector, however, there was substantial delay. No

CWP No. 26719 of 2016 [2] compensation has been paid to the petitioners. The issue sought to be raised by learned counsel for the respondents was that the petitioners herein are not entitled to receive any interest as they had not delivered the possession of the land to the State. The interest will accrue only from the date possession is delivered. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and finding that there is factual dispute with reference to delivery of possession of the land after acquisition, in our opinion, the same cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction. The dispute pertaining to the aforesaid issue only be referred by the Collector to the District Judge concerned for decision thereof after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties shall be at liberty to lead evidence in support of their claim.

The amount of compensation along with interest, which had accrued on FDRs, be paid to the petitioners. In case, the amount finally found to be due is more than the amount already paid, after adjustment thereof, the balance shall be paid by the State subject to its availing any further remedy against the order so passed. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge (Harinder Singh Sidhu) Judge 1.3.

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No

CWP No. 26719 of 2016 [3]