JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

CM-4169-CWP-2019

As prayed for, the instant application is allowed and replication to the written statement, as filed by respondents No.1 and 2, along with Annexure P-15 is taken on record.

CM-4589-CWP-2021

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present application.

3. Leave granted.

4. Consequently, the extant application is dismissed as withdrawn.

CWP-23712-2017

5. The writ petitioner, through the instant writ petition, challenges the makings of Annexures P-11 and P-13. Annexures (supra) encapsulate the demand for recovery of compensation, as, comprised in a sum of Rs.15,72,190/- thus from the petitioner. The said demand of recovery is anchored upon the factum, that earlier to the receipt of the demanded amount of compensation, by the writ petitioner, rather an award was made in respect of the disputed lands, thus by the learned Collector concerned, through the latter recoursing the provisions of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1894'). The said award was pronounced on 20.12.2005 (Annexure P-3). The said award remains unchallenged.

6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner does not wrangle over the fact that in respect of the disputed lands, an award became passed on 20.12.2005 (Annexure P-3). He also does not hold any quarrel with the factum of a valid notification becoming issued in terms of Section 4 of the Act of 1894, nor contests the validity of the declaration, as, made under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, besides does not contest the factum of compliance being meted to all requisite provisions as engrafted in the Act of 1894.

7. Furthermore, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner also does not dispute, that the said notification (supra) became published in the local newspaper(s) circulating in the area, where the acquired lands became situated, nor also disputes the fact that the said notifications, as per the requirement of Sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894, thus became also published in the official gazette concerned.

8. Therefore, in view of no quarrel or wrangle being raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, in respect of all (supra), therefore it can be presumed that prima facie the petitioner, or his alienor, who is the grandfather of the petitioner, had constructive knowledge of the makings of all the above documents, at the instance of the acquiring authority.

Submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner

9. Be that as it may, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has very vehemently argued before this Court, that since in terms of the relevant statutory provisions, as contained in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1887'), thus contemplating the necessity of updation of records of rights, whereby in alteration of the name of the grandfather of the petitioner, who was prior to the award being made in respect of the disputed lands, rather became entered thereins as owner thereof, hence the name of the authority in whose favour the acquisition was made, thus was required to be entered thereins. However, he submits that since the records of rights did not come to be updated, in terms of the said relevant statutory provisions, as embodied in Section 31 of the Act of 1887. Therefore he argues that irrespective of the purported constructive notice, if any, as may b