COCP-2204-2011

-1-

326

2023:PHHC:061176

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

COCP-2204-2011 (O&M)

Date of decision: 29.04.2023

Court on its own motion

... Petitioner

Vs.

Ajit Singh, Dist. Revenue Officer-cum-LAC, Rohtak

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:

Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate

for the writ petitioner.

Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Vansh Chawla, Advocate

for the respondent.

*******

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (ORAL)

On 13.09.2011, Division Bench, in CWP-15788-2011, passed the

following order: -

“The short prayer made by the petitioner in this petition under

article 226 of the Constitution is for issuance of direction to the

District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak

to forward his application dated 16.3.2011 for adjudication of the

learned District Judge which is to decide the question of

VISHNU

2023.04.29 13:25

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this

document

Punjab and Haryana High Court,

Chandigarh

COCP-2204-2011

-2-

apportionment under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The petitioner has claimed

that he has been in possession of the acquired land. His father has

been recorded as ‘occupancy tenant’ in the revenue record

(Muziara Gair Marusi). The District Revenue Officer-cum-Land

Acquisition Collector, Rohtak vide order dated 1.7.2011 (Annexure

P-11) has adjudicated and decided the issue against him and has

rejected his claim that he or his father is in possession of the land

with status of Muziara Gair Marusi. Cryptic order has been

passed by District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition

Collector concluding that the possession is of the owner i.e.

respondent No.5 and has disbursed the whole amount of

compensation to him against bank guarantee. The petitioner has

prayed that the order dated 1.7.2011 (Annexure P-11) be also

quashed because it amounts to adjudicating legal controversy

which could be settled by reference Court.

2.

In the affidavit filed by the District Revenue Officer-cum-

Land Acquisition Collector, respondents No.3 & 4, it has been

categorically asserted that no application under Section 30 of the

Act was received from the petitioner for determining his share of

compensation and, therefore, there was no occasion to make a

reference. But, however, to the contrary the petitioner has initially

VISHNU

2023.04.29 13:25

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this

document

Punjab and Haryana High Court,

Chandigarh

COCP-2204-2011

-3-

averred in the writ petition that an application on 16.3.2011 was

filed before the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition

Collector and it was duly received by the then District Revenue

Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Sh. Ram Avtar Gupta. In

token of receipt, he has also initialed the application. In support

of the aforesaid averment, a photocopy of the application has

been placed on record through C.M. No.12588 of 2011 (Annexure

P-6).

2.

It appears to us that the petitioner had filed the application

but on account of the transfer of the Officer, the application has

not been attended to. There is intrinsic evidence on record to

prove the aforesaid fact from the four line order passed by District

Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector (Annexure P-11)

which reads as under:

“According to the record and report of Kanango Gair

Marusi is not proved here that possession of Gair Marusi of

Banjar is also not proved. Rather the possession of owner

on the vacant land is accepted. However, the compensation

to the owner is hereby being against bank guarantee.”

A perusal of aforesaid order occupancy tenancy was not

proved as per the report of Kanungo. If there was no application

received from the petitioner then there was no reason to record

VISHNU

2023.04.29 13:25

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this

document

Punjab and Haryana High Court,

Chandigarh

COCP-220