JUDGMENT :

In this appeal, the State of Punjab has questioned judgment dated 25.05.2001 of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby he dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of Additional District Judge, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as 'the lower appellate Court') confirming the decree passed by Subordinate Judge, Class-III, Patiala (hereinafter described as, 'the trial Court') in a suit for declaration and possession filed by the respondent.

2. By Notification dated 30.09.1955 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the Government of Punjab proposed the acquisition of 33 bighas and 8 biswas land comprised in Khasra Nos. 17, 20, 42,146 and 147 situated in village Lehal, Tehsil and District Patiala, Punjab for construction of Teachers Training Institute (for short, 'the Institute'). Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 30.11.1955. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officers passed two awards dated 06.10.1956 and 22.08.1960. The State Government took possession of the acquired land from its owner Sunder Singh son of Fatta in October, 1956 and constructed the building of the Institute.

3. After almost 13 years of the issue of notification under Section 4 and over 12 years and 6 months of the issue of notification under Section 6, respondent Amarjit Singh filed suit for declaration and possession by asserting that by virtue of Will- Exhibit P1, executed by Sunder Singh, he had become owner of the land. He pleaded that the acquisition was made without following the procedure prescribed under the Act and the awards were passed by an officer who was not authorised to do so.

4. In the written statement filed on behalf of the appellant, the following preliminary objections were taken:

1. That the suit is not within time.

2. That the proceedings had already been taken under the Land Acquisition Act and the award given and payments also made, hence, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under the Land Acquisition Act.

3. That the matter in dispute is not justiciable.

4. That the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit.

5. That no notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code was served on the defendant.

6. That the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit.

5. In the replication filed by him, the respondent averred that the suit is within limitation because the same was filed within 12 years from the date of taking possession.

6. In the light of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the suit is within time?

2. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file this suit?

3. Whether the valid notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code was served upon the defendant?

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from bringing this suit?

5. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?

6. Whether the matter involved in the suit is not justiciable?

7. Whether the acquisition proceedings regarding the suit land are invalid, illegal, if so, what is its effect?

8. Relief,"

7. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the trial Court held that Notifications dated 30.09.1955 and 30.11.1955 were legal and did not suffer from any infirmity. The trial Court rejected the appellant's objection to the locus of the respondent by observing that he had acquired right in the property by virtue of the Will executed by Sunder Singh. The trial Court also held that the plaintiff cannot be non-suited on the ground of having accepted the compensation by observing that he had done so under protest.

8. While examining the respondent's challenge to the legality of the awards, the trial Court referred to notification dated 14.6.1957 issued by the State Government under Section 3(c) of the Act whereby Shri Mohan Lal Dewan was authorised to exercise the power of the Collector and held that the said notification cannot be relied upon for justifying the making of award dated 6.10.1956 by the officer.