IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20473-2019 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 19.02.2026 Daljit Singh and others ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present : Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

Ms. Sanchinta Jain, Advocate and Mr. Pawandeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. Sumit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3/ MC.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

The present writ petition came to be filed on behalf of the petitioners/ landowners, with the following prayer:-

“to issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pass an appropriate Award for the land acquired vide Notification dated 31st October, 2011 published U/s 4 (Annexure P-2) and Notification dated 9th/12th March, 2012 published U/s 6 (Annexure P-3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and to pay adequate compensation of the acquired land in accordance with law as possession of land has already been taken in the year 2012 and no compensation has been paid till date.”

2. During the pendency of the present writ petition, Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government vide notification dated 28.08.2025 issued in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’), read with sub-section (1) of Section 93 and sub-section (2) of Section 114 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, besides Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, withdrew from the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the subject land.

3. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the possession of land was taken over by the respondents in pursuance to the acquisition and therefore, the notification dated 28.08.2025 was bad in law in terms of Section 48 (1) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that landowners were entitled for award of damages in terms of Section 48 (2) of the Act which reads as under:-

“Section 48 (2): Whenever the Government withdraws from any such acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount of compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice or of any proceedings thereunder, and shall pay such amount to the person interested, together with all costs reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of the proceedings under this Act relating to the said land.”

4. The above claim has been opposed at the instance of respondents while submitting that the possession of the land was never taken over in terms of the acquisition proceedings and for the said reason, the powers under Section 48 (1) of the Act was validly exercised.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book.

6. In view of the changed circumstances, with the issuance of notification dated 28.08.2025, the petitioners/ landowners shall have to avail their remedies elsewhere by impugning the validity of the said notification besides establishing their claim towards damages/ compensation upon proof of taking over of possession of the acquired land by the respondents, in appropriate proceedings.

7. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with the above observations.

8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

19.02.2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA)

sanjay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No Whether Reportable ? Yes/No