DILBHAJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 11.5.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 directing the Land Acquisition Collector, Bathinda to deposit the entire amount of compensation payable to him for adjustment against the recovery due to respondent No.5 in an Original Application which is subject to the matter of execution before respondent No.2. Further a prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of prohibition restraining respondents No.2 to 4 from attaching/withholding the amount of compensation which has become due to be paid to the petitioner in view of judgment of this Court in RFA No. 2703/1994. Writ of mandamus has also been sought directing respondents No.2 to 4 to release the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts as narrated in the writ petition are that the land of the petitioner was acquired by the State of Punjab for establishment of Engineering College at Bathinda which was part of a land measuring 752 Bighas and 9 Biswas. Against the award of compensation by the State Government, the concerned landowners including the petitioner filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act") before the District Judge, Bathinda and thereafter regular first appeal before this Court. The said appeal was disposed of by this Court on 13.3.2008 on the basis of order passed in RFA No. 1953 of 1994 by enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.1,20,000/- per acre to Rs.1,50,000/-. Before the said amount could be released to the petitioner by respondent No.3, on an application moved by respondent No.5-Bank in execution in recovery case No. 157/2006, respondent No.2 vide order dated 11.5.2010 (Annexure P-1) ordered for attaching the entire compensation amount payable to the petitioner under Rule 27 of the 2 nd Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was further directed that the said amount be deposited with respondent No.2 for realization against the recovery due to respondent No.5. Respondent No.3 was directed to report compliance of the said order. In pursuance thereto, respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 19.5.2010 to the petitioner for 26.5.2010.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.