BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that the notification dated July 3, 2000 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, be quashed. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) THE land in dispute measures 2 Kanals 18 Marlas. It is situate in village Bahamana, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala. It is alleged that initially, the District Magistrate had asked the Municipal Council, Samana to utilise the land for the purpose of collection of bones of dead animals. The petitioner had filed CWP No. 5278 of 2000. While this writ petition was pending and notice of motion had been issued, the respondents had resorted to the process of acquisition. Consequently, the notification dated July 3, 2000 was issued under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act. This was so done without the issue of any notification under Section 4. The petitioner alleges that the action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary and based on extraneous considerations. Consequently, he prays that the impugned notification by which he is sought to be dispossessed from his land be quashed.

(3.) MR . Arun Jain, counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Magistrate had tried to deprive the petitioner of the land by exercise of executive power. In the writ petition mentioned above, the petitioner has specifically alleged that he was a Sarpanch and belonged to the Tohra group in the State of Punjab. When the writ petition was entertained, the State Government had invoked the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Learned counsel contends that the action is apparently arbitrary and based on extraneous considerations.