DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by Darshan Singh, to quash the fresh acquisition of his land which had been acquired earlier by the State of Punjab, as also the notices served upon him to refund the compensation already paid to him.

(2.) It is common case of the parties, that land in village Chachoki and Dhak Chachoki in District Kapurthala, including the lands of the petitioner in both the villages, were acquired by the respondent Punjab State by issuing a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on December 10, 1973 (Annexure P.1) and two notifications under section 6 on December 10, 1974 (Annexure P.2 and P.3). Awards under section 12 o the Act were given by the Collector, Land Acquisition on March 26, 1975. In pursuance thereof compensation of Rs. 9,45,407.06 paise regarding the land in village Dhak Chachoki and of Rs. 23,926.26 paise regarding the land in village chachoki was paid to the petitioner on 9.4.1975. There is also no controversy that the Collector Kapurthala had taken actual possession of the acquired and under Section 16 of the Act. The Punjab State subsequently cancelled the aforesaid acquisition and acquired the same land afresh by issuing a notification under section 4 dated December 23, 1975 (Annexure P.5) and two notifications under section 6 dated September 8, 1976 (Annexures P.6 and P.7). The Collector, Land Acquisition, gave fresh awards on December 7, 1976 reducing the compensation on the petitioner's land in Dhak Chachoki by Rs. 2,47,299.31 P. and land situated in village Chachoki by Rs. 6257.64 paise. As a result thereof notices (Annexures P.8 and P.9) were issued to the petitioner on January 4, 1977 by the Land Acquisition Collector to refund the excess amounts received by him in the wake of the earlier acquisition proceedings.

(3.) It has been settled by the Supreme Court in Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat, 1975 AIR(SC) 1767, that after possession of the land forming the subject-matter of acquisition has been taken in accordance with section 16 or 17(1) of the act the land vests in the Government and the Government or any authority is not at liberty to withdraw from acquisition of any land of which possession has been taken. In the present case it is not disputed that possession of the petitioner's lands in both the villages had been taken and compensation had been paid to the petitioner. Unassailable position therefore, is that the petitioner's acquired land vested in, the Punjab Government and the latter had no jurisdiction to cancel the earlier acquisition or to withdraw from the same. As a natural consequence the Punjab State was not at liberty to acquire the same land all over again and to reduce the amount of compensation.