Darshan Singh vs The State of Punjab and Others

Pritpal Singh, J.—This writ petition has been filed by Darshan Singh to quash the fresh acquisition of his land which had been acquired earlier by the State of Punjab, as also the notices served upon him to refund the compensation already paid to him.

It is common case of the parties that lands in villages Chachoki and Dhak Chachoki in District Kapurthala, including the lands of the Petitioner in both the villagers, were acquired by the Respondent Punjab State by issuing a notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called "the Act") on December 10,1973 (Annexure P-l)and two notifications u/s 6 on December 10, 1974 (Annexure P-2 and P-3). Awards u/s 12 of the Act were given by the Collector Land Acquisition, on March 26, 1975 In pursuance thereof compensation of Rs. 9,45,40706 Paise regarding the land in village Dhak Chachoki and of Rs. 23,926.26 Paise regarding the land in village Chachoki was paid to the Petitioner on 94.1975. There is also no controversy that the Collector Kapurthala had taken actual possession of the acquired land u/s 16 of the Act. The Punjab State subsequently cancelled the aforesaid acquisition and acquired the same land afresh by issuing a notification u/s 4 dated December 23, 1975 (Annexure P-5) and two notifications u/s 6 dated September 8, 1976 (Annexure P-6 and P-7). The Collector, Land Acquisition, gave fresh awards on December 7, 1976 reducing the compensation of the Petitioner''s land in Dhak Chachoki by Rs. 2,47,29931 P. and land situated in village Chachoki by Rs. 6257.64 Paise. As a result thereof notices (Annexure P-8 and P-9) were issued to the Petitioner on January 4, 1977 by the Land Acquisition Collector to refund the excess amounts received by him in the wake of the earlier acquisition prceedings.

It has been settled by the Supreme Court in. Balwant Narayan Bhagde Vs. M.D. Bhagwat and Others, , that after possession of the land forming the subject matter of acquisition has been taken in accordance with Section 16 or 17(1) of the Act the land vests in the Government and the Government or any authority is not at liberty to withdraw from acquisit on of any land of which possession has been taken. In the present case it is not disputed that possession of the Petitioner''s lands in both the villages had been taken and compensation had been paid to the Petitioner. Unassailable position, therefore, is that the Petitioner''s acquired land vested in the Punjab Government and the latter bad no jurisdiction to cancel the earlier acquisition or to withdrawn from the same As a natural consequence the Punjab State was not at liberty to acquire the same land all over again and to reduce the amount of compensation.

learned Respondent''s counsel contested that it is not the Punjab Government which had cancelled the earlier acquisition of land but acqisition had been quashed by the High Court which propelled the Punjab Government to acquire the same land once again. In support of this contention my attention was drawn to the certified copy of a judgment of this Court dated November 10, 1975 (Annexure P-10). This judgement indicates that the land of Nirmal Singh and Sadhu Singh of village Chachoki had also been acquired in the earlier acquisition proceedings. They challenged the validity of the acquisition in a writ petition which was accepted by this Court. The acquisition of their lands was quashed. Their relief was in respect of their land and building which was granted to them. This judgement does not indicate that acquisition as a whole had been quashed. It is, therefore, manifest that this judgement did not entitle the State of Punjab to cancel the previous acquisition of land in toto. So far as the Petitioner''s rights are concerned this case is covered by the aforementioned Supreme Court judgment in the case of Balwant Narayan Bhagde''s case (supra). The Punjab Government cannot be allowed to withdraw from acquisition of the Petitioner''s land having already vested in the Government after its possession was taken in accordance with Section 16 of the Act. Nor the Government can be permitted to seek refund of any part of compensation already paid to him in respect of his land. The acquisition proceedings of the Petitioner''s laud have reached finality and are binding on the parties. Fresh acquisition proceedings of the same land of the Petitioner must, in these circumstances, be held to be illegal and without jurisdiction.

In this view of the matter the notifications (Annexure P-4 to P-7) retarding cancellation of earlier acquisition proceedings and acquiring the same land of the Petitioner all over again as well as the consequent notices (Annexute P-8 and P-9) requiring the Petitioner to refund the amount of compensation are hereby quashed. It is however, made clear that the subsequent acquisition has been quashed only in respect of the Petitioner''s land. No order as to costs.