RAJA RAM BARU RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellants and upholding the impugned order of acquisition of their land are as follows:--

(2.) NINE Biswas of the disputed land situate within the municipal area of Morinda, tahsil and district Ropar, came to be owned by Raja Ram appellant No. 1 as a result of a decree in a partition suit to which his sons, appellants Nos. 2 and 3 were parties. Copies of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court are Annexures 'a' and 'b' to the writ petition respectively. Notification, dated December 17, 1968, published in the Punjab Government Gazette (Extraordinary), dated December 17, 1968, at page 1025 (Annexure 'd' to the writ petition), was issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) (hereinafter called the Act ). The notification related to fifteen different pieces of land out of which the land in dispute comprised in Khasra No. 3759 was mentioned at item No. 2. The body of the notification which was Issued during the President's rule in Punjab was in the following terms:- "where as it appears to the President of India that the land is likely to be needed by Government, at public expense, for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of godowns for storage of foodgrains, at Morinda, it is hereby notified that the land in the locality described below is likely to be required for the above purpose. The notification is made under the provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to all whom it may concern. In exercise of the powers conferred by the aforesaid section, the President of India is pleased to authorise the Collector, district Ropar. with such other officers and officials as may be considered necessary for the purpose by him to enter upon and survey the land in the locality described in the specification below and to do all other acts required or permitted by that section. Further in exercise of the powers conferred by the said Act, the President of India is pleased to direct that action under Section 17 shall be taken in this case on the grounds of urgency and provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply in regard to this acquisition. " On the same day, another notification (published at pages 1025 to 1028 of the same Gazette) was issued by the President of India under Sections 6 and 7 read with Section 17 (2) (c) of the Act in the following terms:- Whereas the President of India is satisfied that land specified below is needed by Government at the public expense, for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of godowns for storage of foodgrains at Morinda, it is hereby declared that the land described in the specification below is required for the aforesaid purpose. This declaration is made under the provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to all whom it may concern and under the provisions of Section 7 of the said Act, the Collector, district Ropar, is hereby directed to take order for the acquisition of the said land. Plans of the land may be inspected in the office of the Collector of district Ropar. In view of the urgency of the acquisition, President of India, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 17 (2) (c) of the said Act, is further pleased to direct that the Collector, district Ropar, shall proceed to take possession of the land herein specified in accordance therewith. " The land of the appellants was entered in the schedule attached to the notification at item No. 2. On March 17. 1969, appellant No. 1 submitted objections against the acquisition (copy thereof is Annexure 'e' to the writ petition ). It was claimed therein that appellant No. 1 had after getting the land in dispute under the decree of the Civil Court, and before the issue of the notification under Section 4 of the Act constructed on the land Vishav Karma Mandir and Dharamshala, and, therefore, the same could not be acquired under the law. Reference was made to the Khasra girdawari in which existence of the Mandir had been mentioned. Not having been able to obtain any redress on the objections, the appellants filed Civil Writ 813 of 1969, in this Court in April, 1969, impugning the acquisition proceedings on various grounds.

(3.) IN reply to the allegation regarding the existence of a Mandir and Dharamshala on the land in dispute, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil ). Collector under the Act, swore in his affidavit, dated April 16, 1969, that the Khasra girdawari for Kharif, 1968 (copy Annexure 'c' to the writ petition) seemed to have been interpolated by the Patwari concerned, the interpolation was evident from the original record, the application of the Food Corporation of India for correcting the girdwari was pending, and that in all previous harvests, the land had been shown as un-irrigated, cultivated or uncultivated. In paragraph 7 of his return, he added that no mention of any Mandir is made in report, dated January 2, 1969, regarding the transfer of physical possession by the Naib Tahsildar. He also referred to various other documents of which copies were filed with his return to prove that the building of the alleged Mandir had been constructed entirely after the issue of the notification under Section 4 of the Act "in order to take undue advantage of the law. " Regarding the allegation of the appellants about their having come to know of the notification for acquisition of the land only in March, 1969, it was stated by the Collector that the appellants had been made aware of the notification in the very first instance, and indeed physical possession of the entire area of the land in dispute was taken on January 2, 1969, by the Food Corporation of India, when no temple or place of religious worship existed at the spot. The Collector admitted the receipt of objections from the appellants on March 17, 1969, his visit to the spot on March 19, 1969, and his having submitted report (Annexure 'e' to his return) regarding the same. He also made it clear that on March 17, 1969, the appellants attended his office in response to a notice issued to them under Section 9 of the Act, The Food Corporation of India was stated to have started construction on the plot on March 26, 1969. Since the appellants' claim about the existence of a Mandir on the land prior to the issue of the notification under Section 4 of the Act was not pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants, and was indeed given up before us, I am not referring to the annexures to the Collector's return which appear to have been filed only in order to negative the said claim of the appellants.