Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Surjit Singh Swaich, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab; Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate and Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Through the instant petition, the petitioners seek the quashing of notification bearing No. 6/9/2000-1 HGI/501 dated 23.01.2004 (Annexure P-6), and, also seek the quashing of notification bearing No.6/02-2005-1 HGI/437 dated 18.01.2005 (Annexure P-7). The said notification(s) were respectively issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act of 1894'). The consequent thereto award bearing No. 494 dated 26.12.2006, has also been asked to be quashed, and, set aside.

2. The above espoused writ claims become founded upon the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter for short called as 'the Act of 2013'), whereunders the petitioners become empowered to claim the making of a lapsing declaration.

3. Further, a prayer is made for directing the respondents to not oust the petitioners and their family members from residential house No. 91 falling in Khasra No. 255 situated within the phirni of village Mauli Baidwan, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar, Mohali, in view of rehabilitation/relocation policy dated 18.02.2014 (Annexure P-10).

4. The present petitioners would be entitled to the espoused writ relief(s), as relates to this Court, thus declaring rather lapsed the extantly drawn acquisition proceedings, but only when the provisions embodied in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, become proved to become breached by the respondents. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the asked for relief qua the making of a lapsing declaration rather cannot be accorded by this Court.

5. Primarily for the reason, that the present petitioners would be entitled to coax this Court to declare the launching of the acquisition proceedings under the 'Act of 1894', to thus become lapsed, but only when the respondent-State, rather had completely failed to, in terms of the verdict rendered by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indore Development Authority versus Manohar Lal and others, reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, adduce sufficient/clinching discharging evidence, in respect of the duo parameters, inasmuch as, (i) qua rapat possession being made over the acquired lands, (ii) and, qua the compensation, as became determined by the Collector concerned, becoming deposited for therebys its becoming available for being released to the land losers concerned, besides the said events evidently happening before the coming into force of the 'Act of 2013'.

6. To determine the above, it is necessary to refer to the reply on affidavit, which has been placed on record by the learned State counsel. A reading of paragraph No. 5 of the reply reveals, that the disputed lands are comprised in Khasra No. 255/3, 255/2 and 255/1, form a part of Jumla Mushtarka Malkan of village Mauli Baidwan. Further, as per revenue record maintained in the Office of the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Development, SAS Nagar, the petitioners are not recorded as land owners rather the ownership of the subject lands was in the name of Harbhajan Singh (since deceased), who was the husband of petitioner No. 1. The said recorded land owner is stated on reply on affidavit, to receive the compensation amount of Rs.25,028/- for the acquired jumla mushtarka malkan land vide cheque No. 650717 dated 05.06.2007. In addition, the said Harbhajan Singh (since deceased), is also disclosed on reply on affidavit, to receive the compensation amount comprised in a sum of Rs.7,70,850/- vide cheque No. 727278 dated 31.08.2007. The said compensation amount appertains to the structure (house).

7. The facts (supra) when disclose that the predecessor-in- interest of the present petitioners has received compensation amounts (supra), thereby the present petitioners become estopped to claim compensation amount in respect of the subject lands, thus on the principle that the lawful owner of the subject lands, who is their predece