JAISHI RAM GOEL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are owners of various plots of land with structures erected on some of them, which are situated in Mauza Paranala or Mauza Bahadurgarh Tehsil jhajjar, and by the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution they have challenged the acquisition proceedings relating to the aforesaid land.

(2.) A notification dated 16th February 1961 was issued by the Punjab Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act), wherein it was stated that the land in question was likely to be required by the government at public expense for a public purpose, namely, for setting up a factory for the manufacture of sanitary-wares etc. at villages Parnala and bahadurgarh Tehsil Jhajjar,, District Rohtak, and it was notified that the land in the locality, of which description was given, was likely to be required for the above purpose. Further in exercise of the powers under the Act, the Governor of the punjab directed that action under Section 17 (1) 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 (Annexure 'c' ). This was followed by another notification dated 17th february 1961 which contained a declaration under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, the opening part being the same as has already been set out in respect of the notification under Section 4. In this notification it was further stated that in view of the urgency of the acquisition the Governor, in exercise of the powers under Section 17 (2) (c) of the Act, had directed that the Collector, Rohtak, shall proceed to take possession of the land (Annexure 'b' ).

(3.) ACCORDING to the allegations in the petition the entire acquisition proceedings initiated, taken and proposed to be taken in pursuance of the aforesaid notifications suffered from a number of infirmities. It is alleged inter alia that the acquisition proceedings are being taken for the sake of and at the cost of "hindusthan Twyfords Limited" incorporated on 8th February 1960 at Calcutta under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. This Company has been impleaded as respondent No. 4. This respondent proposed to set up and construct a plant of a factory for the purpose of manufacture and production of sanitary-wares near bahadurgarh. The prospectus shows that is was intended to acquire about 30 or more acres of land for that purpose by the Company. Certain plots of land had been purchased by the Company by private treaty, those plots being adjacent to or surrounded by the plots of land notified for acquisition. According to the petitioners, the land of respondent No. 4 had been purposely left out of the notices for acquisition because the acquisition was being made for the benefit or respondent No. 4 and the entire cost was being met by the aforesaid respondent. The petitioners asserted that the acquisition was not to be made out of whole or any portion was not to be made out of whole or any part of public funds as there was no provision in the budget of the State in respect of the cots involved in the said acquisition. Thus the case of the petitioners substantially is that the acquisition of the land in question is being made for the aforesaid company and this is being done by circumventing the entire provisions contained in Part VII of the Act which alone were applicable in this case. The part of the notification directing that the provisions of section 50-A shall not apply as also the exercise of powers under Section 17 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Punjab amendment) Act, 1953, have been challenged the written statement filed on behalf of the State is not a very illuminating one. However, it is stated that the land was being acquired for public purpose at public expense, the compensation for which would be paid from public funds. An objection was also raised that the determination of "public purpose" was not justifiable. The exercise of powers under Section 5-A and Section 17 is sought to be justified. The arguments have however, proceeded on the assumption that ultimately the land will be placed at the disposal of the aforesaid company.