SURINDER NATH Vs. UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For facility of reference, facts are taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 10425 of 1993.

(2.) A Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in the Chandigarh Administration Gazette (Extraordinary) on 28.6.1990 proposing to acquire 64.23 acres of land situated in Manimajra, Union Territory, Chandigarh (Pocket No. 9) for Residential-cum-Commercial Scheme No.

(3.) Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 24.6.1991 acquiring land measuring 56.53 acres. Award No. 479/LAO dated 21.6.1993 awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,01,440/- per acre was announced. Challenge in the petition is to Notification under Section 4, Declaration under Section 6 and Award dated 21.6.1993.. Challenge is firstly on the ground that the Award was not made within a period of two years as provided under Section 11-A of the Act and so, the entire proceedings for acquisition have elapsed. Secondly, it is on the ground that no previous approval was obtained from the appropriate Government by the Land Acquisition Collector for giving Award as required under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act and thus, Award by him is bad in law. Thirdly, challenge is on the ground that clear 15 days' notice as required under Section 9 of the Act was not given to the petitioners. Against this, the case of the respondents in their written statement originally filed and in additional affidavit filed on 12.7.2000, is that Award was announced on 21.6.1993 and made within a period of two years from.the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Respondents have stated that the amount as awarded under Award dated 21.6.1993 was released and most of the landowners have taken compensation as awarded under the Act. In regard to the formal approval of the appropriate Government under Section 11 of the Act, respondents have stated that it is not available on the record. Regarding notice under Section 9 of the Act, the case of the respondents is that notice was despatched on 1.2.1993 to all the landowners which was duly received by them. According to them, notice was of more than 15 days and the allegation of the petitioners that clear 15 days' notice was not given, is not correct.