MOHD. NAZIR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of a bunch of petitions* because common questions of law are involved therein. For proper adjudication of the controversy in hand at the outset we propose to notice the brief facts and the prayer made by the petitioners in various petitions, which are as under:

(2.) IN these petitions, the petitioner(s) have challenged notification dated 2.5.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the 1894 Act') and the award dated 30.4.1992 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Colonisation Department, Punjab -respondent No. 2. The petitionees) in these petitions purchased the land through various registered sale deeds and constructed their shops. On 2.5.1989, the respondent State of Punjab issued a notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act that land is required for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of a new Mandi Township at Patran, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala (P -1). Eventually, the award in respect of the acquired land was made on 30.4.1992 (P -2). The grievance of the petitioner(s) in these petitions is that since no award in respect of the structures standing on the acquired land has been passed within the statutory period of two years, therefore, the acquisition proceedings are not sustainable and liable to be set aside. No supplementary award could have been passed by virtue of Sections 11 and 11A of the 1894 Act.

(3.) IN this petition, the petitioners have challenged notifications dated 7.1.1994 and 8.8.1994 (P -l and P -2) issued by the respondent State of Haryana under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act respectively. The land in question has been acquired for the public purpose, namely, '66 -KV Sub -Station, Mulana of the Haryana State Electricity Board'. On 5.2.1996, the Collector passed an award in respect of the acquired land, the timber/fruit trees and the Kotha of the submersible tube well. However, the grievance of the petitioners is that no award in respect of the submersible tube well has been passed which was installed by them at a cost of '3,00,000/ -. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings are not sustainable and liable to be set aside.