DEVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges notification dated 19.9.2009 (P-2), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act') and declaration dated 6/7.1.2010 (P-4), made under Section 6 of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has filed objections under Section 5A of the Act on 25.9.2009 in the office of Land Acquisition Collector-respondent No. 2 against Diary No. 4815 (P-3). However, without affording an opportunity of hearing to him by the Land Acquisition Collector, declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been made.

(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 it has been pointed out that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 8/17.9.2009 for a public purpose i.e. for establishment of exclusive approach road for Central University, Punjab, in the revenue estate of Village Ghuda, Tehsil and District Bathinda. A total of 3 objections were received under Section 5A of the Act, including the objection filed by the petitioner. It has further been asserted that on 6.11.2009 all the three objectors including the petitioner came present voluntarily before the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Bathinda respondent No. 2 and hearing was afforded to them. However, the petitioner refused to sign the attendance sheet in token of his presence (R-1). Thus, it has been claimed that opportunity of hearing has been validly afforded to the petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In para 4 of the preliminary submissions of the written statement it has been conceded that since the petitioner was pursuing the objections daily in the office of the Collector, therefore, he was not issued formal process/summons for hearing of his objections. It has also come on record that on 12.11.2009, the Collector has sent his report to the Government-respondent No. 1 (R-2). However, the award is yet to be announced.

(3.) Mr. A.S. Virk, learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in view of categorical admission by the respondents that no notice under Section 5A of the Act was issued, it must be accepted that the principles of natural justice have been violated. In support of his submission, he has drawn our attention to the averments made in para 4 of the preliminary submissions of the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2.