STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. MADAN GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under the Land Acquisition Act against the decision of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Hissar under Section 18 of that Act The matter has arisen thus. By notification dated the 31st March, 1953, Government acquired land in village Uklana measuring 28.11 acres for Fatehabad branch of Bhakra canals. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 19th April, 1955. The Collector made his award on 15th December. 1955 and allowed compensation amounting to Rs. 4406/9/11 at the rate of Rs. 158/- per acre only for 27.89 acres. In addition he allowed 15 per cent on account of compulsory acquisition. The owners of the land moved the Collector for reference under Section 18 of the Act to the District Judge. Reference was accordingly made and it came up for determination before the Senior Subordinate Judge at Hissar. Before him, the argument raised was that as the notification was for acquisition of 28.11 acres and actually land measuring 30.49 acres had been acquired, the whole proceedings were vitiated and therefore the award was without jurisdiction. For this, reliance was placed on Bhagwandas Nagindas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 28 Ind Cas 489 : (AIR 1915 Bom 15). Following this decision, the Senior Subordinate Judge has set aside the entire proceedings. The Government has come up in appeal.

(2.) The short question for determination is whether the acquisition beyond what was notified, to be acquired would make the entire acquisition proceedings invalid. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the decision of the Senior Subordinate Judge cannot be sustained either on principle or on authority. So far as the decision of the Bombay High Court in Bhagwandas Nagindas' case 28 Ind Cas 489 : (AIR 1915 Bom 15) is concerned, it has no application. In that case part of the land acquired obviously formed part of a house, manufactory or other building and the owners could object to part acquisition in view of Section 49(1) of the Act. That was not a case where part of a field number of agricultural land was acquired or acquisition was made in excess of the area notified to be acquired. It was common ground in that case that part could not be acquired and the whole of it had to be acquired in terms of Section 49, which is quoted below for the purposes of convenience :

(3.) In the case last hereinbefore provided for, no fresh declaration or other proceedings under Sections 6 to 10 both inclusive shall be necessary; but the Collector shall without delay furnish a copy of the order of the Appropriate Government to the person interested and shall thereafter proceed to make his award under Section 11." The Collector in that case accepted the contention of the owners and proceeded to assess compensation for the entire land but without getting the Government to declare its intention to acquire the entire land. It is in this situation that the Bombay High Court in Bhagwan Das's case 28 Ind Gas 489 : (AIR 1915 Bom 15) held the whole proceedings were ultra vires and illegal. Thus it is clear that this decision has no application to the facts of the present case. In the instant case we are not concerned with any type of Property specified in Section 49. We are concerned with agricultural land. The notification, which is printed at p. 520 of the Punjab Government Gazette dated the 29th April 1955, clearly sets out the area to be acquired and it also states that the plan of the area has been put up in the Office of the Collector for inspection. The land was acquired in accordance with the plan. Therefore, acquisition proceedings to that extent are valid. There is no provision in the Act like Section 49 which prohibits the Government from acquiring a part of an agricultural field or holding. If the contention, which prevailed with the Senior Subordinate Judge is allowed to prevail, part of agricultural land out of a large field or a holding can never be acquired. This will lead to absurd results. There is no rationale on the basis of which such an acquisition can he held to be not justified. The principle underlying Section 49 has no application to such a case. 3. The other contention raised is that as plan. Therefore, acquisition proceedings to that been acquired the entire acquisition will be illegal and of no consequence. This contention also has no force. The acquisition to the extent of what is specified in the notification would be valid but beyond that would certainly be unauthorised, and would not in any way confer any title on the Government.