MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE BHATINDA Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High court of Punjab and Haryana dated may S, 1985 whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 3534 of 1984 filed by the appellant was dismissed.

(2.) On 20/10/1976, the government of Punjab issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') whereby it was notified that land measuring 14 bighas and 13 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 2012 situated at Bhatinda was required for the construction of a public park by the Municipal Committee, Bhatinda. After considering the report submitted under Section 5-A of the Act, the State government issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 5/07/1977 in relation to thesaid land. Civil Writ Petition No. 2315 of 1977 filed by Smt Parwati Devi, respondent 2 (deceased) , to challenge the validity of the said notification and declaration was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High court by its judgment and order dated 26/04/1978 and special leave to appeal against the said decision was refused by this court on 4/05/1979. It appears that during the pendency of the said writ petition in the High court and the special leave petition in this court, the acquisition proceedings had been stayed and the same were revived after the dismissal of the special leave petition by this court. While the said proceedings were pending before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, bhatinda exercising the powers of Collector, Bhatinda, Smt Parwati Devi and Sudesh Kumar, respondent 3 herein, filed an application whereby it was prayed that the acquisition proceedings be dropped and the notifications under S. 4 and 6 of the Act be quashed for the reason that a period of six years had elapsed and that possession had not been taken by the government and the applicants were still in possession of the land in question. In that application, reliance was placed on the decision of the full bench of the Punjab and Haryana High court in Radhey Shyam gupta v. State of Haryana and other decisions of the High court. The appellant filed a reply to the said application wherein it was submitted that the notifications were not liable to be quashed and no such power to quash the notification vested in the Collector who has only to make an award. In the said reply, it was also stated that the delay in disposal of the acquisition proceedings was on account of the pendency of the matter in the High court and this court and that the market price of the land had 'already been obtained from the revenue authority. The said application filed by respondents 2 and 3 was allowed by the Additional Deputy commissioner, Bhatinda by his order dated 20/12/1982 on the view that in a case where the possession of the land is not taken within one year of the issuance of the notification under Section 6 of the Act, the notification would be deemed to have lapsed. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High court to challenge the said order of the Additional deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda. It was dismissed by the High court by its order dated May 8, 1985 on the view that the appellant had no locus standi to file the writ petition and further that the State government was always competent to abandon the acquisition of land and in this case, it had been done for good reasons. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal.

(3.) Smt Parwati Devi, respondent 2, died during the pendency of the matter in this court. Respondent 3, who is also the legal representative of deceased respondent 2, has not appeared in spite of notice.