VIKRAMJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing notification dated 15.3.1991 (P.1) issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(2)(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act'). THE aforesaid notification culminated in the draft award dated 30.12.1992 (P.2) and final award dated17.3.1993(P.3). THE petitioner has already received compensation for his land way back in the year 1983. THE basic argument raised by the petitioner is that the land belonging to the petitioner has not been utilised for a public purpose of setting up of Abohar Integrated Cooperative Cotton Ginning and Spinning Mills for which land was acquired by invoking emergency provisions and it is impermissible to change the public purpose for using the land which was transferred to Punjab Argo Juices Ltd. a wholly government owned company. It has come on record that the land stand already utilised for public purpose other than the one for which it was notified in the notification issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act and a Multi Fruit and Vegetable Processing Unit with a capital outlay of Rs. 42 crores have already been set up. It has already commenced its production from January, 2008.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and find that there is no possibility of handing over the land of the petitioners back to them after the ownership of the land vest in the State free from all encumbrances. The petitioner has already accepted the compensation in the year 1993. It is well settled that if the land by the State has not been utilised for a purpose for which it was acquired then there is no bar to utilize the land for other public purpose. In that regard reliance may be placed on a judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. Jaswant Rai Kochhar (1996) 3 SCC 491. In that case the land was acquired for Housing Scheme and the argument raised before Hon'ble the Supreme Court was that it cannot be used for a commercial purpose. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the argument by observing as under: ................ it is a well-settled law that land sought to be acquired for public purpose may be used for another 1353 public purpose. Therefore, when the notification has mentioned that the land is sought to acquired for housing scheme but it is sought to be used for District Centre, the public purpose does not cease to be public purpose and the nomenclature mentioned in the notification under section 4(1) as housing scheme cannot be construed to be a colourable one. The notification under section 4(1) could not have been quashed on the ground that the land is sought to be used for district Centre, namely, for commercial purpose....... The aforesaid view has been reiterated in the cases of P.Narayanappa v. State of Karnataka (2006) 7 SCC 578 and Ravi Khullar v. Union of India (2007) 5 SCC 231.