The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the State of Punjab to acquire 10.5 marlas of private land belonging to retired Lieutenant General Savneet Singh, holding that the State cannot retain possession of private property without following the law and denying the landowner compensation for its use.
The Division Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Pravindra Singh Chauhan was hearing a writ petition filed by Lt. Gen. Savneet Singh, who appeared in person. The petitioner had alleged that the State had encroached upon his ancestral land in Hoshiarpur during construction of a road in 1972. A fresh demarcation conducted pursuant to the Court’s directions found 10.5 marlas of the petitioner’s land in the illegal possession of the PWD Department.
During the proceedings, the Punjab Government expressed its willingness to acquire the affected land under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The State, however, had sought an undertaking from the petitioner that neither he nor his predecessors or successors would claim damages for the use of the land until acquisition.
The High Court rejected this condition. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 569 and R.L. Jain v. DDA, (2004) 4 SCC 79, the Court held that where the Government takes possession of private land before acquisition, the landowner is entitled to rent or damages for the period during which the Government retains possession. The Court noted that the petitioner’s land had remained in State occupation since 1972.
Accordingly, the Court directed the State to issue a Section 11 notification under the 2013 Act and complete the acquisition within three months, along with payment of all statutory benefits. It further directed payment of simple interest at 6% per annum on the awarded amount from 1972 until issuance of the Section 11 notification.
The Court also imposed Rs. 50,000 costs on the State of Punjab, noting the circumstances of the case and that the petitioner had appeared in person before the Court on several occasions.
