JUDGMENT

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

CM-1431-LPA-2019

Prayer in this application is for the condonation of delay of 1 day in filing the appeal.

In view of the contents of the application which is duly supported by an affidavit of Mr. Jatinder Singh Gill, Advocate, the same is allowed and delay of 1 day in filing the appeal is condoned.

LPA-602-2019

The appellants have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dated 18.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Bench, vide which the writ petition filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 18.12.2013 (Annexure P-13 with the writ petition) (reference to Annexures hereinafter shall indicate reference to Annexures with the writ petition) passed by respondent No.6 was partly allowed.

2. The appellants are purchasers of small parcels of land situated in Village Bir Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. This land, along-with other land was acquired, vide notification dated 20.04.2010, issued under section 20A of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RAILWAYS ACT '). After acquisition, Award dated 14.12.2011 was passed. However, compensation for the said land was not paid to the appellants on the ground that the land was not owned by the appellants or their vendors but was owned by the Gram Panchayat and it was 'Shamlat Deh'. Initially, vide order dated 05.11.1997 (Annexure P-1), the Collector/DDPO, Patiala held that the plaintiffs in that petition who are the vendors of the present appellants had been successful in proving that they are the true owners of the land in dispute and that the same is not 'Shamlat Deh The matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the Gram Panchayat of Village Dhamoli, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala lost the litigation.

3. After the Award for the acquired land having been announced, vide order dated 31.08.2012, payment of compensation to the present appellants was withheld on the ground that there was an ownership dispute. Vide report dated 21.11.2012 (Annexure P-9), the District Revenue Officer reiterated that the Gram Panchayat Dhamoli had lost its case up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and there was no stay order by any Court restraining the payment of compensation to the owners. Since the compensation was not being paid, the appellants approached this Court by way of a writ petition bearing CWP No.1171 of 2013 titled as 'Ravinder Singh and others v. Union of India and others', which came to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 16.07.2013, holding that if the question whether the land was 'Shamlat Deh' or not had not been previously decided, the same be decided by the Collector under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PVCL Act'). It was also held that the petitioners therein would be at liberty to approach respondent No.6 for modification of the order vide which compensation had been withheld.

4. On an application for modification having been moved, respondent No.6, vide order dated 18.12.2013 (Annexure P-13), held that there was a dispute regarding ownership of the land and relegated the parties to the Civil Court. The LAC-cum-DRO, Patiala was directed to deposit the entire compensation with the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala and also refer the matter of title to the same Court for proper adjudication.

The Award was upheld and petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act') was dismissed vide order dated 11.07.2016 (Annexure P-17).

5. In pursuance to the order dated 18.12.2013 (Annexure P-13), a reference was sent to the D