JAGDISH RAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition at the instance of Jagdish Ram and others, residents of Anandhpur Sahib in District Ropar, is directed against the State of Punjab (respondent No. 1) and the Collector, Ropar (respondent No. 2) for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the notifications (annexures 'b' and 'c' to this writ petition) and for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the said respondents not to take possession of any part of the land detailed in Annexure 'a'. 2. It has been alleged by the petitioners in their writ petition that the Punjab Government issued notification No. 635312-HG-69 on 13-10-1969 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called the Act to the effect that land within municipal limits of Ananthpur Sahib together with some area outside it is needed by the Government at public expense for the purposes of various development schemes of Anandhpur Sahib. A copy of the said notification is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 'b'. After the issuance of the said notification, the Punjab Government issued another notification under Section 6 of the Act, wherein the land proposed to be acquired was particularised by attaching a schedule mentioning the villages and the hadbast numbers as also the Khasra members. The Punjab Government in the said notification further invoked the emergency powers vested in it under Section 17 (2) (c) of the Act. A copy of the subsequent notification is annexed to the writ petition as annexure 'c'. Admittedly, in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, the Khasra members of the land intended to be acquired are not mentioned and merely the area expressed in acres is mentioned. It is further admitted on both sides that in the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act the names of the Municipal limits of the Anandhpur Sahib are omitted. The petitioners have, therefore, come to this Court by way of the present writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the vires of the notifications, annexures 'b' and 'c' and the legality of the subsequent proceedings leading to the finalisation of the award, as also the competency of the Government to take possession of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 34 to 39 and 7/3 situated within the municipal limits of Anandhpur Sahib owned and possessed by the petitioners. 3. It is however, admitted on both sides that the petitioners did not prefer any objection under Section 5-A of the Act, nor did they file any claim for compensation in response to notice issued under Section 9 of the Act. The petitioners case is that they never knew that their lands had been acquired, as the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act was extremely vague and mentioned no Khasra members, which fact may have enabled them to avail of the opportunity provided under Section 5-A of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act did not mention that any land within the municipal limits of Anandhpur Sahib had been acquired and so the question of their preferring any claim for compensation in response to a notice issued under Section 9 of the Act did not arise. 4. The respondent State in its return has merely mentioned that omission of mentioning the municipal limits of Anandhpur Sahib in the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act is by inadvertence and has further asserted that when both the notifications, annexures 'b' and 'c' and read together, they provide sufficient information regarding the land which has been acquired by the Government vide notifications, annexures 'b' and 'c' and so neither notification issued under Section 4 nor that issued under Section 6 of the Act is vague. 5. It may be mentioned here that these very notifications were under challenge in Civil Writs Nos. 584 and 585 of 1970 (Punj) which were decided on 22-5-1970. Suri, J. , of this Court, before whom the said writ petitions came up for hearing, has held that there was no such emergency which could have necessitated the invoking of the provisions of Section 17 (2) (c) of the Act. Regarding the vagueness of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act (annexure 'b' to the present writ petition), the learned Judge has observed as follows :