SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.M. Kasliwal, Yogeshwar Dayal, JJ.
Ashwani Kumar Dhingra - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2977 of 1979
Decided On : 06-03-1992
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4 and 6 – Acquisition of Land – Claim of compensation - However, the learned single Judge of the High Court by judgment dated 19th November, 1976 accepted the writ petition and quashed the impugned Notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 6th August, 1973. The learned single Judge in the said writ petition also directed that the petitioners in that writ petition would be entitled to take possession of the property on depositing compensation. The State of Punjab being dissatisfied filed Letters Patent Appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge dated 19th November, 1976. The Letters Patent Appeal (No. 14 of 1977) came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court on 9th August, 1978 : (reported in 1978 Pun LJ 319). After hearing the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal but modified the order of the single Judge to the extent that they quashed the impugned Notifications dated 6th August,, 1973 "in so far as they relate to the land of the respondents therein". The respondents therein were only advocate – Held, In the counter-affidavit filed in this Court, it is pointed out that the writ petition out of which the present appeal arises was filed approximately five years after the date of Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and after the award and the appellant had not challenged the acquisition of land all these years and had, in fact, accepted the compensation under protest. Mr. Sanghi then submitted that in the writ petition filed by the father and brother also they were allowed by order dated 18th December, 1974 to withdraw the compensation payable to them without prejudice to their rights in the writ petition. It will be noticed that the order dated 18th December, 1974 was passed during the pendency of the Writ Petition No. 3465 of 1973 and the petitioners in that writ petition withdrew the amount of compensation after express permission of the High Court so that their rights in the writ petition are not prejudiced in any way - Acceptance of compensation under protest was not done by the appellant with a view to safeguard his right to challenge the acquisition itself but to safeguard his right to require the matter being referred by the Collector for determination of the Court in relation to the matters mentioned in Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is clear from the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act that the person interested, in order to enable him to seek the remedy of reference can do so only if he does not accept the award. In order to show that the person concerned had not accepted the award the claimants accept the compensation only under protest because once the compensation awarded in pursuance of the award is accepted without protest the person concerned may lose his right to a reference for various matters mentioned in Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act - It is clear in the present case that the appellant had not challenged the acquisition and it was not shown to us that he withdrew he compensation in pursuance of any order of any Court to safeguard any other rights. It is also clear from the order of the learned Division Bench dismissing the writ petition, filed by the present appellant, of what contention was urged by him before them. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this was not the contention urged by him before the High Court. We are afraid, such a plea cannot be permitted in the present appeal when the order was pronounced in the open Court and the order was naturally to be pronounced on the submissions made before the learned Division Bench. If the appellant had any such grievance, he should have approached the Division Bench with such a plea - Appeal dismissed
ORDER :
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.
This is an appeal by Shri Ashwani Kumar Dhingra, Advocate, Fazilka, against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 11th September, 1978 dismissing the Writ Petition (C.W.P. 3771 of 1978), filed by him. Before considering the submissions on behalf of the appellant, it would be necessary to know a few facts.
2. It appears that Sh. Sudhir Kumar Dhingra and his father, Shri Nand Lal Dhingra, advocate had earlier filed a Writ Petition (C.W. No. 3465 of 1973) against the State of Punjab for quashing Notifications dated 6th August, 1973 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In this writ petition, the appellant herein was not a party. However, the learned single Judge of the High Court by judgment dated 19th November, 1976 accepted the writ petition and quashed the impugned Notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 6th August, 1973. The learned single Judge in the said writ petition also directed that the petitioners in that writ petition would be entitled to take possession of the property on depositing compensation. The State of Punjab being dissatisfied filed Letters Patent Appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge dated 19th November, 1976. The Letters Patent Appeal (No. 14 of 1977) came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court on 9th August, 1978 : (reported in 1978 Pun LJ 319). After hearing the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal but modified the order of the single Judge to the extent that they quashed the impugned Notifications dated 6th August,, 1973 "in so far as they relate to the land of the respondents therein". The respondents therein were only Shri Sudhir Kumar -Dhingra and his father, Shri Nand Lal Dhingra, advocate.
3. The result of the said decision was that the Division Bench restricted to quashing of the impugned Notification only in relation to the land of the respondents in the Letters Patent Appeal. It appears that after the dismissal of the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal the appellant herein, Shri Ashwani Kumar Dhingra filed a writ petition on or about 5th September, 1978 for quashing the same Notifications dated 6th August, 1973 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
4. It also appears that in pursuance of the impugned Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector had announced his award on 11th December, 1973 and the compensation awarded by the Collector was accepted by the petitioner, Shri Ashwani Kumar Dhingra under protest and thereafter he filed applications for enhancement of compensation before the competent Court. The writ petition filed by the present appellant came up for hearing before the same bench which had decided the earlier Letters Patent Appeal No. 14 of 1977 and the Division Bench passed the following order:
No other point is urged before us.
For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and is dismissed in limine."
5. It is apparent from the aforesaid order of the Division Bench that the contention urged in support of the writ petition on behalf of the appellant was that the Letters Patent Appeal No. 14 of 1977 was wrongly decided. Against
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.