(1.) The petitioners in these cases viz. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1901, 1965 and 1966 of 1984, are aggrieved by the orders by which they were called upon to pay the different amounts of money on account of illegal occupation of Government land. A brief reference to the factual position as evident from the pleading of Civil Writ Petition No. 1901 of 1984 may be made.
(2.) The land measuring 53 ares 2 kanals 15marlas was acquired by the Government vide notification dated February 8, 1980. The petitioners aver that no date for the announcement of the award was intimated to the petitioners. However, an award was announced on June 16, 1982. The petitioners aver that in fact, this award was not announced on that date and that they had actually paid the land revenue even in respect of the subsequent crops. In spite of this, they were called upon to pay Rs. 3450/- in so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned and Rs. 13025/- in so far as petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned by April 16, 1984. The petitioners aver that this demand has been made on the premises that they were in illegal occupation of the land which had been acquired by the State Government. They further aver that in fact, possession of the land had not been taken on June 16, 1982 and therefore, possession was not illegal. On these premises, a prayer for quashing of the order a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-2 with the writ petition, has been made.
(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been inter alia averred that the award had been actually announced on June 16, 1982 and that report was entered in this behalf at Serial No. 603 in the Daily Dairy Report by the Revenue patwari. It has also been averred that the physical possession of the acquired lad had been taken on the spot. The respondents maintain that the petitioners are liable to make the payment of the assessed amount in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Colonization of Government Land (Punjab) Act, 1912 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondents maintain that the petitioners have trespassed into Government land and consequently they are liable for the payment demanded from them.