BABU SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by certificate under Article 133 (1) (a) arises from the dismissal in limine of Civil Writ Petition No. 1046 of 1969 by a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court. The State of Punjab published the Notification dated 15th March, 1963 Annexure 'A' notifying that different pieces and parcels of land described in the notification were required for a public purpose namely; 'for the execution of Soil Conservation and other improvement works in the Catchment areas of Sukhna Lake Chandigarh and for raising a green belt around the Capital'. Simultaneously the notification recited that in view of the urgency in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 17 the requirement of the provision of Section 5-A shall be dispensed with. Immediately thereafter on the same day a declaration was made under Section 6 as per notification Annexure 'B' that the pieces and parcels of land more particularly set out in the schedule to the notification were required for the public purpose namely; 'for carrying out Soil Conservation measures in Sukhna Lake Catchment Area in Kharar Tehsil, District Ambala'. After this declaration was made under Section 6 an award was made by the Collector on 23rd October, 1963 and subsequently on 21st March, 1964. The appellants and some other person whose lands were acquired made a representation to the Chandigarh Administration presumably requesting for allotment of alternative land and a reply was given as per Annexure 'D' that their request for allotment of alternative sites was rejected. The appellants filed their petition on 22nd April, 1969 inter alia contending that the urgency clause was unlawfully applied and accordingly if the inquiry as contemplated in Section 5-A could not be dispensed with, it was illegal to simultaneously issue notification under Sections 4 and 6 on the same day and, therefore, the entire process of acquisition was vitiated. Some other contentions were also raised to which a reference would be made while examining the contentions put forth on behalf of the appellants in this appeal.

(2.) On a notice being issued Land Acquisition Collector filed the return dated 5th August, 1969. It was contended that long before the Writ Petition was filed the entire process of acquisition was over and possession was taken by the Acquiring Authority and the public purpose for which the land was acquired was being executed stage by stage commencing from 1963 and is a continuing process. It was, therefore, contended that the petition must fail on the ground of delay and laches. On merits it was also contended that enquiry under Section 5-A was rightly dispensed with and possession of lands and the huts standing thereon was taken over and no illegality committed in acquiring the lands.

(3.) Mr. O. P. Varma learned counsel who appeared for the appellant raised three contentions before us:-