STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. INDERPAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Defendants' second appeal direction against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby on the basis of the finding that the award in regard to acquisition of land has not been made within two years of the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894 acquisition proceedings have lapsed, suit of the Plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that they are owners and are entitled to possession of land has been decreed. In the alternative, Defendants have been directed to start acquisition proceedings afresh and pronounce the award at the prevalent market price failing which possession of the suit land has been ordered to be restored to the Plaintiffs.

(2.) IN the plaint, Plaintiffs alleged that the suit land was acquired by the Patiala State but the Collector neither gave any award nor offered any payment to Lukman Singh and Hem Singh who were owners of the suit land. Plaintiffs further alleged that as per the requirements of Patiala Land Acquisition Act No. III of 1995 B.K. (1938 A.D.) the award was required to be made but none was made. They alleged that the afore-mentioned Act, was replaced by the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Land Acquisition Act, 2006 BK (1949 AD). Thereafter, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was extended to Pepsu by the erstwhile Punjab Act, 1953 and in the year 1984, Section 11-A was inserted which made it mandatory for the Collector to make award within two years from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Plaintiffs alleged that this requirement has not been complied with and, therefore, the entire proceedings of acquisition have lapsed and they have become entitled to possession of land. Hence, the suit. Upon notice, Defendants in their written statement denied the averments made in the plaint and contended that not only compensation was fixed but also paid as far back as 1946 A.D. Defendants submitted that the suit land vested in the Patiala State and this was so recorded in the Jamabandis for the year 1949-50 A.D. and onwards. Defendants in their written statement referred to mutation No. 2903 of 1946 transferring the suit land to the State as the land owners had received compensation of Rs. 19586, 4 Annas, 2 Paise. Defendants also submitted that after the land had vested in the State, land measuring 58 Bighas 10 Biswas was given in exchange to Harchand Singh Jeji son of Gulab Singh Jeji and with the passage of 50 years, land has gone in succession to the defendants of Harchand Singh Jeji and most of it has been sold to bona fide purchasers who have built their houses thereon. Defendants submitted that Plaintiffs have concealed all these facts and have not made parties to the suit the persons who have come in possession of the suit land. Defendants further submitted that land measuring 90 Bighas 15 Biswas whose ownership was vested in the State was purchased by Maharaja Yadvinder Singh for a consideration of Rs. 2,86,372/-. The said land remained in possession of the Maharaja during his life time and after his demise, it passed in succession to his son Maharaja Amarinder Singh. Defendants also referred to the various Jamabandis to show possession and ownership, firstly in the name of State and subsequently in the name of Maharaja Amarinder Singh and others who have purchased plots and built their houses thereon. Plaintiffs in their replication denied the submissions made by the defendants in their written statement and reiterated those taken by them in their plaint.

(3.) IN order to prove their case, two of the Plaintiffs, namely, Gurjit Singh Jeji and Gurveer Singh Jeji appeared as PW-1 and PW-2 and tendered documents, Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-7. In rebuttal, defendants examined Pritpal Singh, D.W. 1, Patwari, who deposed that the suit property was acquired and compensation was assessed as Rs. 19586, 4 Annas 2 Paise and the same was paid to the land owners on account of which State of Patiala became owner of the suit land. He proved on record copy of mutation No. 2903, Ex. D-1, vide which compensation was paid and Ex. D-2, mutation No. 2904, vide which land was exchanged between Harchand Singh Jeji and State of Punjab. He further proved copy of mutation, Ex. D-4, vide which land was purchased for a consideration of Rs. 2,86,372/-. The said land was a part of Moti Bagh Palace, Patiala. He further proved Ex. D-6 to Ex. D-16, various jamabandis, mutations and Aks Shajra, D-17 and D-19. On appreciation of the various documents and the statements made by the witnesses, trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed their suit to the following effect :-