The possession of acquired land affects the rights of the landowner, and the plea of discrimination must be supported by specific details. Additionally, the refund/re-deposit of compensation amount is inadmissible under the 1894 Act.

ORDER

Augustine George Masih, J. - By filing the present writ petition, petitioners have challenged notification dated 19.07.2002 (Annexure P-3) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 1894 Act'), notification dated 17.07.2003 (Annexure P-4) issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act and award No.4 dated 16.07.2005 (Annexure P-5) qua the land measuring 6 kanal and 8 marla, comprised in Rect. No.38//17/2, 18/1, 23/1/3 and 58//3/1/2 situated in village Patti Gaddar, N.H.I52, Bypass Road, Tehsil and District Kaithal, with a prayer for release of their land as per Section 24 (2) of the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 2013 Act'). Petitioners have also pressed into service a plea of discrimination which is alleged to have been meted out to them as 85 properties were released vide various letters, copies of which have been appended as Annexures P-7 and P-8.

2. Counsel for the petitioners asserts that the petitioners are owners of the land referred to above and are in continuous possession thereof till date. The land of the petitioners which has been acquired is 6 kanal and 8 marla qua which they have filed this writ petition. The facts with regard to the issuance of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 as also the subsequent award passed thereon, as referred to above as also the deposit of the award amount and receipt thereof by the petitioners has not been disputed. However, it has been asserted that the amount of compensation qua this piece of land i.e. 6 kanal and 8 marla stands refunded. In support of this fact, reference has been made to the letter dated 22.09.2008 (Annexure P-6) issued by the Tehsildar, Kaithal.

He submits that earlier the petitioners had not challenged the acquisition and have now approached the Court by asserting the lapse of acquisition in the light of the provisions contained under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act and discrimination on the ground that the respondents have released large chunk of land relating to 85 properties, details of which have been appended as Annexures P-7 and P-8. A site plan has also been appended along with the writ petition as Annexure P-9 depicting the land of the petitioners measuring 6 kanal and 8 marla as red colour and the released area as yellow colour. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the basis of these pleadings while referring to the site plan and the photographs, asserted that the petitioners have been discriminated against by non-release of the land in question. He, therefore, prays that the impugned notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of 1894 Act as also the award dated 16.07.2005 be quashed and the land of the petitioners which is the subject matter of this writ petition be released.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has asserted that the land of the petitioners which they are claiming to be released, affects the planning of 100 meter green belt including 24 meter wide road as per approved layout plan. He asserted that the petitioners have already lifted their compensation amount as has been admitted by them and merely because they assert that they have redeposited the amount of compensation qua the land in question, cannot be accepted nor does it give them a right to take such a plea as there is no provision under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which would permit refund/re-deposit of such amount. That apart, in any case, it is asserted that the fact remains that the amount of compensation as assessed by the Award stands deposited with the Collector and was always available for disbursement to the petitioners, which they, as a matter of fact, had taken and therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others 2020 (AIR) SC 1496, the claim of the petitioners cannot be accepted.

As regards the plea with regard to the discrimination, which