Not appropriate to refer land acquisition dispute to Principal Civil Court when same matter is pending before civil court: High Court

feature-top

Read Judgement: Amritpal Singh v. Union of India and Others 

 Vivek Gupta

Chandigarh, July 22, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that it would not be appropriate for it to refer a dispute pertaining to entitlement of compensation for land acquisition to the Principal Civil Court of the district, when the same matter is already pending for adjudication in the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction capable of granting the desired relief.

“If the matter is now referred to the principal civil court of the district, then identical questions/issues/points of determination shall be required to be adjudicated by two different courts of competent jurisdiction, simultaneously. This would not only lead to multiplicity of proceedings, but may also result in conflicting decisions,” said a bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of land measuring 15 kanals 16 marlas, whereas another person claims to be the owner of the land measuring 7 kanals 8 marlas out of the above referred land on the strength of the registered sale deed dated August 8, 2012 executed by the petitioner through his power of attorney dated December 12, 2011. 

The petitioner filed a civil suit on August 6, 2015 seeking a declaration that the above mentioned sale deed was a result of fraud and conspiracy and he continues to be the owner in possession of the land. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction.

During the pendency of the suit, the Union of India issued a notification on July 5, 2017 expressing its intention to acquire a vast tract of land including the land measuring 7 kanals 8 marlas for a road project.

In 2018, the petitioner filed an application under Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956 requesting the Sub Divisional Magistrate (West), Ludhiana, not to disburse the amount of compensation.

On February 7, 2018, the SDM rejected the application while refusing to refer the dispute to the Civil Court. Even as the present petitioner challenged the order of the SDM in the civil court of competent jurisdiction, he also filed a Civil Writ Petition in a local court that was rejected.

In the petition before the HC, the petitioner assailed the correctness of the order passed on February 7, 2018 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (West), Ludhiana, and prayed that the dispute with respect to entitlement of compensation for acquisition of a piece of land under the National Highways Act,1956 should have been referred by the competent authority to the Principal Civil Court of the district, in accordance with Section 3-H(4) of the 1956 Act.

On the last date of hearing, the HC bench of Justice Kshetarpal framed a question for the purpose of deciding this case: “Whether it would be appropriate for the High Court to refer the dispute with respect to the entitlement of compensation for acquisition of land under the 1956 Act to decision of the Principal Civil Court of the District, particularly when the same matter is already pending for adjudication between the same parties for the past six years in the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction capable of granting the desired relief?”

The counsel for the petitioner argued during the course of the hearing that the SDM had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute as he was required to refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.

Deciding the matter, the bench stated that “No doubt, two Division Benches of this Court in Nirmal Singh vs Union of India and Ram Sarup & Others v. Union of India & Others, respectively, have held that if any dispute arises as to apportionment of the amount, the competent authority is under an obligation to refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court of the District. The two other High Courts have also laid down on the same lines.

“However, the law has to be applied in the facts of each case. The courts can not apply the law in a vacuum. Before following the law, the court is required to carefully examine the facts of the case and then analyse as to whether it would be appropriate to apply the law relied upon,” observed the bench

“If the matter is now referred to the principal civil court of the district, then identical questions/issues/points of determination shall be required to be adjudicated by two different courts of competent jurisdiction, simultaneously. This would not only lead to multiplicity of proceedings, but may also result in conflicting decisions. In these circumstances, this Bench is of the considered view that it would not be appropriate to refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court in the facts of the present case,” the bench held.

It added that once the petitioner has elected to continue with the Civil Suit, then at this belated stage, it would not be appropriate for the Court to direct another Court to start de novo proceedings on the same subject matter.

“Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Bench does not find it appropriate to issue the writ as prayed for,” the bench concluded.

Add a Comment