Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Parsad vs State Of Punjab Andors on 17 February, 2025
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Vikas Suri
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:025342-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
103 CWP-6925-2005 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 17.02.2025
Ram Parsad ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
----
Present: Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. R.S.Khosla, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Yogender Verma, Advocate
for respondent - PUDA.
****
Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)
1. The writ petition purportedly arises from notification(s) issued
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter for short called
as the ‘Act of 1894’), besides also arise from declaration(s) issued under
Section 6 of the ‘Act of 1894’.
2. The present petitioner claims the hereinafter extracted reliefs.
Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for
quashing:
a) Notification issued by the Secretary, Housing and Urban
Development under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 dated 06.09.1997 and dated 17.05.2001.
b) For Declaration that Section 23(1) First of the Land
Acquisition Act. 1894 is ultravires of Article 31-A, Second
Proviso, because, the said Act does not provide the fixing of1 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 08-03-2025 01:59:04 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:025342-DBCWP-6925-2005 (O&M)
-: 2 :-compensation, “at no less than market price”, as on the date of
acquisition.
AND
c) For seeking declaration that the provisions of Punjab New
Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952, be declared as ultravires
of Second Proviso of the Article 31-A of the Constitution as it
imposes illegal and unreasonable restriction on the fundamental
rights of the land owners, whose total holdings is within the
permissible limits and personally cultivate the same.
AND
d) For declaring that the policy of the government that
acquisition shall be done by the department, who is interested in
acquiring the land, establishes a procedure which his not fair to
the right holders and is void being in contravention of principles
of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution.
e) The notification under Section 56 of the Punjab Regional and
Town Planning and Development Act of 1995 is said to have been
issued in the year 1996. That notification is liable to be quashed
as Public was kept in dark and no objections as required could be
filed. That notification also liable to be quashed.
AND
f) That acquisition is being ordered/notified in violation of the
provisions of Punjab Regional and Town Planning and
Development Act, 1995 which is mandatory.
AND
g) Civil Writ Petition in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents to grant the same benefits to the applicants as given
to the other khewatdars of the village on the principle of parity as
the notification dated 02.02.2001 has already been set aside by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, vide judgment dated
2 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 08-03-2025 01:59:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:025342-DB
CWP-6925-2005 (O&M)
-: 3 :-
22.01.2015 passed in Civil Appeal No.7424 of 2013 titled as
“Karnail Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and others“.
3. Before proceeding to determine the validity of the reliefs (supra),
as, espoused in the writ petition, it is necessary to delineate the essential facts.
4. A notification bearing No.6-9/1997-1HG1/566 under Section 4 of
the ‘Act of 1894’ became issued on 09.06.1997 and it became succeeded by a
declaration issued under Section 6 of the ‘Act of 1894’ on 17.05.2001 and
subsequently, an award bearing No.481, was made on 17.05.2001.
Contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner for seeking the writ reliefs.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has with much
vigor made a contention, that since those parts of the acquired lands which fall
within the ‘lal lakir’ and the ‘phirni’ of the village, thus become declared in
clause (g) of the policy dated 20.01.2006, of the State Government, clause
whereof stands extracted hereinafter, to be not amenable for acquisition.
Therefore, he contends that qua those portions of the writ lands as are falling
in the village abadi besides are within the extended abadi, besides especially
when therebys the said lands are part of the heritage site of the village,
thereupons when they are, thus required for maintaining the agrarian cultural
ethos of the village. Resultantly, to that extent the acquisition notification be
quashed and set aside, besides the consequent thereto award be also quashed
and set aside.
(g) Existing Rural Settlements. – Considering the existing as well
as future development needs of the villages falling within the
Periphery as well as with a view to cater to their increasing
population, it would be prudent to provide a sufficiently compact
and contiguous belt of land around the village “phirni” for
3 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 08-03-2025 01:59:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:025342-DB
CWP-6925-2005 (O&M)
-: 4 :-
ensuring the organic growth of these villages. Any area falling
between the “lal lakir” and the ‘phirni’ of the village shall also be
treated as part of the extended belt. The area should be allowed to
be used primarily for meeting individual residential and petty
commercial needs of the existing and future population of a
village. However, charges for change of land use should be levied
on prescribed rates, except in the case of bona fide residents. No
industry should be permitted in such area. Similarly, formal
colonization shall also not be permitted in the extended ‘abadi’
area on the pretext of this recommendation alone.
With these caveats, the Committee proposes to allow the village
“Abadi” area extension by 60% subject to a minimum of 50
metres and maximum of 100 metres in radial length from the
‘phirni’. However, where the existing Abadi Deh or a part thereof
is an area which forms a part on the rural/agricultural and
afforestation zone of the Outline Master Plan/Draft
Comprehensive Master Plan/Comprehensive Master Plan
prepared under the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and
Development Act, 1995, the extent of such area shall be limited to
50 metres. Permitting construction in the notified forest areas
falling in these villages would, of course, be subject to due
approval as regards change of land use. No permission should,
however, be granted in any area which falls within the Sectoral
Grid of SAS Nagar (Mohali), as reflected in the Outline Master
Plan. The extent of area where such constructions are to be
permitted will be demarcated and certified for each village falling
within the Periphery by the Revenue Authorities, subject to the
final approval of PUDA. In order to promote planned
development, it is proposed that construction in the area should
be regulated by a set of simple building norms, subject to
payment of Land Use conversion charges and in accordance with
other details as contained in Annexure C. However, to avoid
4 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 08-03-2025 01:59:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:025342-DB
CWP-6925-2005 (O&M)
-: 5 :-
hardship to villages and land owners, the area in the extended
abadi deh shall be exempted from the provisions of the Punjab
Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995.”
6. In consequence, they argue that on makings of acquisition(s) of
the above lands, there would be effacement of the sacrosanct site of the
village.
Contentions of the learned State counsel.
7. The learned State counsel has placed on record, written synopsis,
whereins, he contends that in case the writ reliefs are allowed, thereby this
Court would be proceeding to untenably accord to the petitioners, the benefit
of the lapsing provisions, as carried in sub section (2) of Section 24 of the The
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter for short refer to as the
‘Act of 2013’), despite, adduction of the relevant discharging evidence, thus in
satiation of the twin parameters enshrined thereins, inasmuch as, despite rapat
possession becoming evidently assumed, of the acquired lands, but prior to the
coming into force of the ‘Act of 2013’, and, also despite compensation but
before the coming into force of the ‘Act of 2013’, thus becoming deposited in
the Government Treasury, for thereby it becoming available for being
disbursed to the land-losers concerned.
8. In making the above submission, the learned counsel for the
respondents, thus has made reliance, upon, paragraph No. 363 of the verdict
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case titled as ‘Indore Development
Authority Versus Manoharlal and others’, to which SLP (Civil) Nos. 9036-
9038 of 2016, has been assigned, para whereof is extracted hereinafter.
5 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 08-03-2025 01:59:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:025342-DB
CWP-6925-2005 (O&M)
-: 6 :-
363. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions
as under:
1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is
not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of commencement of Act of
2013, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be
determined under the provisions of Act of 2013.
2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of
five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the
court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section
24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 under the Act of 1894 as if it has not
been repealed.
3. The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between possession and
compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’. The deemed
lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the
Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities for
five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the
possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been
paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken,
compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly,
if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken
then there is no lapse.
4. The expression ‘paid’ in the main part of Section 24(2) of the
Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in court.
The consequence of non-deposit is provided in proviso to Section
24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of
land holdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date
of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of
1894 shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the
provisions of the Act of 2013. In case the obligation under Section
31 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has not been fulfilled,
interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-
6 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 08-03-2025 01:59:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:025342-DB
CWP-6925-2005 (O&M)
-: 7 :-
deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of
land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect
to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation
under the Act of 2013 has to be paid to the “landowners” as on
the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4of the
Act of 1894.
5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as
provided under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is not open to
him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due
to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The
obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under
Section 31(1). Land owners who had refused to accept
compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation,
cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under
Section 24(2)of the Act of 2013.
6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is to be treated
as part of Section 24(2) not part of Section 24(1)(b).
7. The mode of taking possession under the Act of 1894 and as
contemplated under Section 24(2)is by drawing of inquest report/
memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession
under Section 16 of the Act of 1894, the land vests in State there
is no divesting provided under Section 24(2)of the Act of 2013, as
once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section
24(2).
8. The provisions of Section 24(2)providing for a deemed lapse of
proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to
their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five
years or more before the Act of 2013 came into force, in a
proceeding for land acquisition pending with concerned authority
as on 1.1.2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders
7 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 08-03-2025 01:59:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:025342-DB
CWP-6925-2005 (O&M)
-: 8 :-
passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five
years.
9. Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause
of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land
acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the
date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not
revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen
concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the
legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or
mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court
to invalidate acquisition.
For the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner are rejected and the contentions raised by
the learned State Counsel is accepted.
9. Even, if assumingly the benefit of the lapsing provision, as
enshrined in the mandate carried in Section 24 (2) of the ‘Act of 2013’ may not
be available to become assigned to the land-losers concerned. However,
irrespective of the above, the launching of the acquisition proceedings at the
very inception were, prima facie, rather in contravention of the above
extracted clauses, as exist in the relevant policy, as becomes framed by the
Government of Punjab.
10. This Court in planking thereons, a prima facie inference, for
therebys it prima facie, tentatively declaring non est the issuance of the
notification(s) (supra), in-so-far as, they relate to evident infraction being
made to the above extracted clause, rather becomes led to do so on the
hereinafter premise(s).
a) The abadis within the declared abadi deh zones of the
village concerned, but are an integral part of the agrarian ethos.
8 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 08-03-2025 01:59:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:025342-DB
CWP-6925-2005 (O&M)
-: 9 :-
b) The abadis or the abadi homes of the abadi owners which
fall within the abadi deh are a sacrosanct heritage of the village or
of the mohal. Therefore, they are to be preserved as such, through
ensuring that on urbanized planing taking place, thus the heritage
abadi deh, which rather is the sacrosanct site of the village, does
not either disappear nor becomes effaced.
c) The earmarkings of abadis do take place during the
consolidation operations and the reservation of abadi dehs by the
consolidation officer, does also advance, the agrarian character of
the village.
d) Since the agrarian character of the village, is to be
maintained and/or is to be preserved, thereby the acquisition of
abadis or acquisition(s) of adjacent thereto lands, may be
avoided, especially when in times to come, the extensions of the
abadi areas, thus may be required, for accommodating, the
increasing population in the mohal, thus for enabling the
increased population to create abadis, on such extended abadi
belts.
e) Though in the column of ownership abadi deh lands are
described to be owned by the abadi deh. However, the person
who raises abadis within the abadi deh, are yet not interdicted to
amongst themselves alienate possessions through execution of
deeds of conveyance. Therefore, if so, the records of rights which
in the column of ownership thereof, declare the abadi deh land to
be owned by the abadi deh, thereupon they rather appear to be
antithetical to the concept of ownership, which but obviously
inheres in the abadi raiser on abadi deh. As such, in the column of
ownership appertaining to lands designated as abadi deh, abadi
owners are to be considered to be included in the apposite
column of ownership.
f) The above would facilitate, that thereby the principles of
succession apply, especially when in absence of the above
9 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 08-03-2025 01:59:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:025342-DB
CWP-6925-2005 (O&M)
-: 10 :-
declaration(s) in the column of ownership, thereby the possession
of the abadi homes, would be the relevant principle, rather for
succession thereto becoming assumed by the surviving possessor
thereof. Resultantly thereby the rules of succession may become
whittled down, unless a testamentary disposition is made by the
deceased abadi owner concerned.
g) In sequel, for overcoming the above, this Court
recommends to the State of Punjab to make orders for updating
the revenue records, relating to the ownership column of abadi
deh lands, thus through in substitution thereins qua the extant
designation of abadi deh, rather their occurring in the ownership
column of abadi deh lands, thus the name of the raiser of the
abadi on the abadi deh.
h) The above may also facilitate the entitlement of the abadi
holders concerned, to receive compensation which they otherwise
may, prima facie, become dis-entitled to, but on a mis-
presumption, that the abadi owners who have raised abadi on the
abadi deh land, are not reflected in the column of ownership, to
be owning such raised abadis, on abadi deh lands.
11. Though this Court has made the hereinabove inferences, but since
there are plain speakings in the reply, on affidavit, furnished to the writ
petition CWP-17658-2006, by the respondents, as well as, in the written
synopsis filed by the respondent-State, that the relevant sites are vacant,
besides when thereto, thus determined compensation amount comprised of
10 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 08-03-2025 01:59:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:025342-DB
CWP-6925-2005 (O&M)
-: 11 :-
Rs.9,23,213/-, especially qua the acquired land of the purported abadi deh,
qua petitioners in CWP-1568-2007, standing deposited, by the Land
Acquisition Collector, Urban Development, S.A.S. Nagar, in Government
Treasury vide RD No. 80 dated 07.10.2008, whereas, in respect of the
petitioners in CWP-17658-2006, compensation to petitioner No.1 standing
paid vide cheque No.141 dated 03.11.2010. Further, when it is revealed
thereins, that out of total amount of compensation of Rs.1,39,98,730/- an
amount of Rs.1,21,72,372/- has been paid vide voucher no.141 dated
03.11.2010 and the balance amount of Rs. 18,26,358/-, standing deposited, in
Government Treasury vide RD No. 80 dated 07.10.2008, for the same being
available to be disbursed to the land-losers concerned. Moreover, since it is
also stated in the written synopsis filed by the learned State Counsel, that the
compensation, in respect of the other petitioners, stands deposited in
Government Treasury vide RD No. 81 dated 07.10.2008, for therebys it being
available to become released to the land-losers concerned. Consequently,
when therebys, the parameters spelt in the judgment supra, become satiated at
the instance of the respondent therebys, the petitioner is not entitled to the
making of the espoused lapsing declaration.
12. Furthermore, also it evidently emerges that, prima facie, the
existence of any purported abadi on any purported abadi deh, rather is a mis
raised contention. Moreso, when in the earlier round of litigation, the above
contention became not raised. Resultantly therebys, in terms of order 2 Rule 2
CPC, the present petitioners are barred to raise the said contention, which was
not raised earlier.
11 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 08-03-2025 01:59:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:025342-DB
CWP-6925-2005 (O&M)
-: 12 :-
13. Moreover, since the above contention is raised upon the relevant
entry existing in the relevant jamabandi, but yet conclusive and cogent
evidence, but was required to be adduced by the petitioners, thus displaying
that the said entry also relates to the acquired lands. However, the said
evidence is grossly amiss. Resultantly therebys, the apposite acquisition, as
made under the subject award, is deemed to be made in respect of open spaces
or lanes within the abadi deh, which obviously fall within the inclusionary
clause of the definition of shamlat deh. The said inclusionary clause is
envisaged in Section 2(g)(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands
(Regulation) Act, 1961 as applicable to Punjab & Haryana, provisions
whereof becomes extracted hereunder:
“2 (g) “Shamilat deh” includes
(1) Land described in the revenue records as Shamilat
deh excluding abadi deh.
(2) Shamilat Tikkas,
(3) Land described in the revenue records as shamilat,
Tarafs, Pattis Pannas and Tholas and used
according to revenue records for the benefit or the
village community or a part thereof for common
purposes of village.
(4) Lands used or reserved for the benefit of the village,
community including, streets, lanes, playgrounds,
schools, drinking wells, or ponds within abadi deh
or gora deh and
12 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 08-03-2025 01:59:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:025342-DBCWP-6925-2005 (O&M)
-: 13 :-
14. In consequence therebys the supra contention, thus becomes a
disputed question of fact. Therefore, irrespective of the makings of
hereinabove inferences, this Court does not deem it fit and appropriate to
clinch here, the disputed question of facts (supra), nor thereby the petitioners
are entitled to seek a mandamus rather for enforcing the Government Policy
(supra).
15. Further, since the respondents in their reply-affidavit, as well as
in their arguments, thus firmly contend that the writ land(s), were acquired for
furthering the requisite public purpose, and, that the petition lands are an
integral component of the layout plans relating to the completion of the
relevant public purpose. Therefore, since this Court is not well enabled to
review or re-call the layout plans. Resultantly this Court refrains from doing
so.
16. Furthermore, since predominance is to be assigned to the larger
public purpose than to individual interests of the estate holders concerned.
Therefore, in doing so, this Court also refrains from allowing the petitioner
claim for the acquired lands becoming released from acquisition.
Final Order of this Court.
17. In aftermath, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, the
same being completely frivolous, thus is required to be dismissed with costs.
Therefore, the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-, upon the present
petitioner to be forthwith deposited by him with the Treasurer of the “Punjab
and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association”.
18. The impugned notification(s) and the consequent thereto award
13 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 08-03-2025 01:59:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:025342-DB
CWP-6925-2005 (O&M)
-: 14 :-
are maintained and affirmed.
19. Since the main case itself has been decided, thus, all the pending
application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(VIKAS SURI)
February 17, 2025 JUDGE
Varinder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
14 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 08-03-2025 01:59:05 :::