Justice Surya Kant quashed land acquisition notifications issued under urgency provisions as a colourable exercise of power intended to deny owners the right to object, while restraining petitioners from altering the land.
Impugned notifications dated 13th February, 1981 quashed; petitioners restrained from altering land for six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.W.P. NO. 3753 OF 1987. ::-1-::
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 3753 of 1987 . Date of Decision: 04th December, 2008 .
Rakesh Khanna & Ors. Petitioners through Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. G.S.Attariwala, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL)
This Civil Writ Petition is directed against the notifications dated 13th February, 1981 issued under Sections 4 [Annexure P-1] and Section 6 read with Section 17[2][c] of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Annexure P-2] whereby land measuring 8 kanals 10 marlas including the land owned by the petitioners comprised in Khasra No.1579/2[6-10], has been acquired.
The petitioners were admittedly the owners of land comprised in Khasra No.1579/2, measuring 6 kanals 10 marlas situated within the revenue estate of Jalandhar City. Their land, along with another piece of land was sought to be acquired firstly vide notification dated 21/24th May, 1980 [Annexure P-3] issued under Section 4 read with Section 17[2][c] of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [ for short 'the Act'] for the public purpose, namely, for
C.W.P. NO. 3753 OF 1987. ::-2-::
“construction of Disposal Work of Water Works at Jalandhar by the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board”. On the same day, another notification under Section 6 read with Section 17[2][c] of the Act was also issued [Annexure P-4].
Both these notifications, however, had to be rescinded for want of their publication in the locality within thirty days. It is obvious that no award was also passed.
Notwithstanding the alleged urgency behind the acquisition, the State Government did not take any action for more than eight months when it again issued fresh notifications under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17[2][c] if the Act [Annexures P1 and P2].
Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court in which while issuing notice to the respondents, the Motion Bench vide order dated July 1, 1987 directed the parties to maintain status-quo regarding possession.
It is pertinent to mention here that even after issuance of the impugned notifications in February, 1981, the award was passed somewhere in the year 1982 and thereafter possession of the land is claimed to have been taken on 15.3.1982. Still further, the subject land was not utilized for the purported “public purpose”, rather it appears from the evasive and vague averments made in para 13 of the written statement dated 11th January, 1988 that the site for construction of the Disposal Work of Water Works at Jalandhar was also changed meanwhile.
Be that as it may, the solitary question which survives for
C.W.P. NO. 3753 OF 1987. ::-3-::
consideration is as to whether or not the respondents were justified in law in invoking the urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Act and consequently to dispense with the requirement of procedure laid down under Section 5A of the Act?
The only remedy available to a landowner against compulsory acquisition of his land is an opportunity to submit objections under Section 5-A of the Act against the proposed acquisition for which only thirty days' time from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act is provided. It would indeed imply that while invoking urgency powers under Section 17 of the Act, the appropriate Government, having regard to the nature of urgency, is satisfied that the land owner can not be given even thirty days' time to raise objections against the proposed acquisition.
The acquisition process undertaken in the present case, if tested on the touch-stone of the aforementioned principle, it can be safely inferred that even according to the respondents, the execution of the project could await months and years. It means that powers under Section 17 of the Act were invoked merely to deprive of the petitioners from submitting their objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The impugned acquisition proceedings are, therefore, nothing but a colourable exercise of power. Suffice it to note that while the earlier notifications [Annexures P3 and P4] were allowed to lapse and rescind, the authorities took more than eight months to re-start the acquisition process vide the impugned notifications. No satisfactory explanation has been given in the written statement and/or during the course of hearing as to why the petitioners could
C.W.P. NO. 3753 OF 1987. ::-4-::
not be given even a month's time to raise the objections, if any, against the subject acquisition?
For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notifications dated 13th February, 1981 [Annexures P1 and P2] are hereby quashed. This, however, shall not preclude the respondents from acquiring the land of the petitioners for any “public purpose” as per the law, if so required. The petitioners are, however, restrained from raising any construction or changing the nature of the subject land for a period of six months from today so that the public purpose for which the land might be required by the respondents, is not frustrated or jeopardised.
No costs.
December 04, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the State was justified in invoking urgency provisions under Section 17 to dispense with objections under Section 5A.
Whether the acquisition proceedings were a colourable exercise of power.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Rakesh Khanna & Ors.
State of Punjab & Ors.
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
