CWP-20473 132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Daljit Singh and others State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present : HARKESH MANUJA, petitioners/ landowners, with the following prayer: 20473-2019 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date Daljit Singh and others VERSUS State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present : Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Ms. Sanchinta Jain, Advocate and Mr. Pawandeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. Sumit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3/ MC. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) The present writ petition came to be filed on behalf of the petitioners/ landowners, with the following prayer: “to issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the appropriate Award for the land acquired vide Notification dated 31st October, 2011 published U/s 4 (Annexure P-2) and Notification dated 9th/12th March, 2012 published U/s 6 (Annexure P Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and to pay compensation of the acquired land in accordance with law as possession of land has already been taken in the year 2012 and no compensation has been paid till date.” IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20473-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.02.2026 ...Petitioners ...Respondent HARKESH MANUJA r. V.D. Sharma, Advocate Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Sanchinta Jain, Advocate and Mr. Pawandeep Singh, Advocate for The present writ petition came to be filed on behalf of the petitioners/ landowners, with the following prayer:- writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pass an appropriate Award for the land acquired vide Notification dated 31st October, 2011 published U/s 4 2) and Notification dated 9th/12th March, 2012 published U/s 6 (Annexure P-3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and to pay adequate compensation of the acquired land in accordance with law as possession of land has already been taken in the year 2012 and no compensation has been paid till ...Respondents The present writ petition came to be filed on behalf of the writ, order or directions in the nature respondents to pass an appropriate Award for the land acquired vide Notification dated 31st October, 2011 published U/s 4 2) and Notification dated 9th/12th 3) of the adequate compensation of the acquired land in accordance with law as possession of land has already been taken in the year 2012 and no compensation has been paid till SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.20 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20473 2. Government of Punjab, Depar notification dated 28.08.20 Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’), read with sub 114 of the Right to Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, besides Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, withdr acquisition proceedings pertaining to the subject land. 3. the possession of land was taken over by the respondents in pursuance to the acquisition and therefore, the notification dated 28.08.2025 was bad in law in terms of Section 48 (1) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitione were entitled for award of damages in terms of Section 48 (2) of the Act which reads as under: 20473-2019 (O&M) [2] During the pendency of the present Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government vide notification dated 28.08.2025 issued in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’), read with sub-section (1) of Section 93 and sub 114 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, besides Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, withdr acquisition proceedings pertaining to the subject land. However, learned counsel fo the possession of land was taken over by the respondents in pursuance to the acquisition and therefore, the notification dated 28.08.2025 was bad in law in terms of Section 48 (1) of the Act. earned counsel for the petitioners were entitled for award of damages in terms of Section 48 (2) of the Act which reads as under:- “Section 48 (2): Whenever the Government withdraws from any such acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount of compen the damage suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice or of any proceedings thereunder, and shall pay such amount to the person interested, together with all costs reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of the proceedings unde to the said land.” During the pendency of the present writ petition, tment of Local Government vide issued in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’), section (1) of Section 93 and sub-section (2) of Section Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, besides Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, withdrew from the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the subject land. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the possession of land was taken over by the respondents in pursuance to the acquisition and therefore, the notification dated 28.08.2025 was bad in law in terms of Section 48 (1) of the Act. rs also submits that landowners were entitled for award of damages in terms of Section 48 (2) of the Whenever the Government withdraws from any such acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount of compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice or of any proceedings thereunder, and shall pay such amount to the person interested, together with all costs reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of the proceedings under this Act relating petition, tment of Local Government vide issued in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’), section (2) of Section Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, besides the r the petitioners submits that the possession of land was taken over by the respondents in pursuance to the acquisition and therefore, the notification dated 28.08.2025 was bad in law in terms of Section 48 (1) of the Act. submits that landowners were entitled for award of damages in terms of Section 48 (2) of the Whenever the Government withdraws from any such acquisition, the Collector sation due for the damage suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice or of any proceedings thereunder, and shall pay such amount to the person interested, together with all costs reasonably incurred by him in the r this Act relating SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.20 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20473 4. respondents while submitting that the possession of the land was never taken over in terms of the acquisition said reason, the powers under Section 48 (1) of the Act was exercised. 5. through the paper 6. of notificat have to avail their remedies elsewhere by impugning the validity of the said notification damages/ compensation the acquired land by the respondents, in appropriate proceedings. 7. with the above observations 8. stand disposed of. 19.02.2026 sanjay 20473-2019 (O&M) [3] The above claim has been opposed at the instance of respondents while submitting that the possession of the land was never taken over in terms of the acquisition said reason, the powers under Section 48 (1) of the Act was exercised. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. In view of the changed circumstances of notification dated 28.08.2025, the petitioners/ landowners shall have to avail their remedies elsewhere by impugning the validity of the said notification besides establishing their claim towards damages/ compensation upon proof of taking over of possession of acquired land by the respondents, in appropriate proceedings. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with the above observations. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .02.2026 ( Whether speaking/reasoned ? Whether Reportable ? has been opposed at the instance of respondents while submitting that the possession of the land was never taken over in terms of the acquisition proceedings and for the said reason, the powers under Section 48 (1) of the Act was validly I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone n view of the changed circumstances, with the issuance ion dated 28.08.2025, the petitioners/ landowners shall have to avail their remedies elsewhere by impugning the validity of besides establishing their claim towards upon proof of taking over of possession of acquired land by the respondents, in appropriate proceedings. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No Yes/No has been opposed at the instance of respondents while submitting that the possession of the land was proceedings and for the validly I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone with the issuance ion dated 28.08.2025, the petitioners/ landowners shall have to avail their remedies elsewhere by impugning the validity of besides establishing their claim towards upon proof of taking over of possession of In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.20 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document