STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SANJEET SINGH GREWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of Civil Appeals by Special Leave the common judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated March 28, 2001 in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 7291, 8708, 9047, 9143 and 16738 of 2000 has been impugned. Civil Appeal Nos.5721 - 5725 of 2001 have been preferred by the State of Punjab while Civil Appeal Nos.5727- 5731 of 2001 have been preferred by the New Town Planning and Development Authority for Anandgarh. Special Leave Petition No.7946 of 2000 has been preferred against the order of the High Court dated September 10, 2001 in Civil Writ Petition No.7050 of 2001 adjourning the writ petition sine die awaiting the judgment of this Court in the aforesaid Civil Appeals. By this common judgment and order we proceed to dispose of all the appeals before us as also the Special Leave Petition.

(2.) The facts of the case are not in dispute. The State of Punjab issued Notifications Exhibits P-1 to P-29 dated March 13, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for acquisition of about 9354 acres of land in 29 villages of the district of Ropar. The acquisition was proposed to be made for "a public purpose namely for setting up of new town, Anandgarh". Objections were invited against the proposed acquisition. Several writ petitions were filed before the High Court challenging the aforesaid Notifications alleging that the Notifications had been issued in derogation of the provisions of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1995'). It was stated that to set up a new town, the site had first to be selected by the Board constituted under the Act of 1995. The Board was thereafter required to designate a planning agency. This was not done. The provisions of Sections 56, 57, 58 and 59 of the Act of 1995 were completely ignored. Though the New Town Planning and Development Authority for Anandgarh was constituted by the Government on May 20, 1999 under Section 31 of the Act of 1995, in the absence of a decision of the Board under Sections 56 and 57 of the Act of 1995, the aforesaid Special Town Planning Authority for Anandgarh could not take up the planning and development of the new township. It was alleged that a large number of influential persons including senior bureaucrats had bought land in the area with a view to earn profit since the Government had announced compensation at an exorbitant rate. It was also submitted that the provisions of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Periphery Act') and the rules framed thereunder have been violated. Apart from these legal submissions it was also urged that the site was not suitable for a new town.

(3.) The appellants (respondents in the writ petitions) contested the writ petitions and submitted that the State Government having taken a decision to set up a new township Anandgarh, and having appointed a Special Planning Authority under Section 31 of the Act, the Board had no role to play in the matter and it was not necessary that the Board should have first selected a site and designated a planning agency before the Special Planning Authority could take any action for planning and development of the new township. It was also submitted that the Periphery Act did not inhibit the State of Punjab from acquiring land in the controlled area under the Periphery Act for the purpose of setting up a township.