JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Sharma, J.

Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all the writ petitions, these were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, in order to maintain clarity, the facts of C.W.P. No. 3571 of 2009-G have been taken into consideration.

C.W.P. No. 3571 of 2009-G

'Key facts' necessary for the adjudication of this writ petition are that notification, u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) was issued on 1st October, 2003 for acquiring the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 158, 159, 160, 162 and 163, situate in Minyasi Kothi Banyog and Maujas Kanon, Kothi Bunga. Petitioners have purchased land from one Badhu Ram vide sale deeds, dated 30.05.2005 and 10.06.2005. Mutations were also attested in favour of the petitioners. A notification u/s 17(4) of the Act was issued by the State Government on 16.11.2005, for acquiring Khasra No. 161. Petitioners made representation seeking compensation for the damage caused to their houses by respondents No. 3 and 4 to respondent No. 2 on 03.08.2007. Similar representation was made to Land Acquisition Officer, Parbati Hydro Electric Project, Sainj, District Kullu, H.P. on 08.01.2009. Respondents No. 3 and 4 have sent a communication to the Executive Engineer, Division No. 1, HP PWD, Kullu on 23.01.2009, stating therein that 15 numbers of houses situate on Khasra No. 161 were likely to be damaged. A further request was made to the Assistant Engineer concerned to get the estimates prepared of these houses without material (as the material was to be taken back by the owners of houses) at the earliest. This has been placed on record by the petitioners vide Annexure P-18. The Assistant Engineer, HP PWD, prepared the drawings of the houses which were falling in Channi Nallah Dumping site Phati Kanon Kothi Bunga, Sub Tehsil Sainj and submitted the same to the Deputy Manager (Civil) on 04.04.2009. These were duly verified by the functionaries of respondents No. 3 and 4. Petitioners made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner on 01.09.2009. The Deputy Commissioner issued the necessary instructions to the S.D.M., as per the endorsement made on the representation itself. The Land Acquisition Officer, Parvati Hydro Electric Project Phase-III, Larji, District Kullu, H.P. has sent a communication to the General Manager, informing him that the spot inspection of Khasra No. 161, Phati Kanon, Kothi Bunga, Sub Tehsil Sainj was conducted on 21.01.2009 and a detailed report was sent to his office for necessary action vide letter dated 22.01.2009. He has requested the authorities to settle the matter. Similarly, the Naib Tehsildar, Sainj also informed the General Manager of respondent No. 3-Company on 23.09.2009 for taking action by referring to the report of the Patwari. The Patwari has verified that 12 houses were damaged and walls of 3 houses were damaged and the same were not fit for human habitation. The Deputy Manager (Civil) and Senior Manager (Civil) have taken the cognizance of the drawings submitted by the Assistant Engineer, HP PWD on 04.04.2009. It appears from the record that the same was marked to Assistant Engineer, HP PWD, Banjar. Petitioners have placed on record the notings, dated 30.06.2009 alongwith the record of the Assistant Engineer.

2. Mr. J.S. Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that since the possession of Khasra No. 161 has been taken over, the State Government is bound to acquire the land of the petitioners and to pay them adequate compensation. He further contended that once the notification has been issued u/s 17(4) of the Act, the same could not be withdrawn by the State Government after taking possession u/s 48 of the Act.

3. Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the notification issued u/s 17(4) of the Act has elapsed after a period of two years.

4. Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, learned Senior Advocate,