SURESH VERMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 10th June, 1968, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , hereinafter called the Act, was issued by the Governor of Punjab, for the acquisition of 11. 1975 acres of land, situate in Ludhiana City, for a public purpose, namely, the construction of a bus-stand. In the said notification, it was mentioned that action, as contemplated under Section 17 of the Act would be taken and the restriction mentioned in Section 5A of the Act would not apply to the said acquisition. On the same day, another notification under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act was also issued by the Governor regarding the same land. In the latter notification, it was stated that keeping in view the urgency of the matter, the Governor, while exercising his power vested in him under Section 17(2)(c) of the Act, had ordered the Collector, Ludhiana, to take possession of the land. Subsequently, actual possession of the land in question was also taken on 5th July, 1968. After doing so, the Government in fact started the construction of the bus-stand and spent about Rs. 66,000/- thereon. Thereafter, it is said that there was a change in the Ministry in the State and on 21st August, 1969, the Chief Minister decided that instead of constructing a bus-stand on the land, it might be utilized for some other public purpose. A decision was then taken that about 6 acres, out of the said land be handed over to the Punjab Agro Industrial Corporation, hereinafter called the Corporation because they wanted to build a workshop thereon. It was also decided that the compensation for the land, which was to be given to the Corporation, would have to be paid by the latter. In the land, which was handed over to the Corporation, about 2352 sq. yards belonged to Suresh Verma, who had purchased the same in October 1967 for Rs. 20,000/-. He then started making representations to the Chief Minister against the acquisition of his land by the Government and then handing the same over to the Corporation. He pointed out that he had leased out the same to Burmah Shell Company for a term of 20 years with effect from 1st February, 1968, on a monthly rent of Rs. 220/- to enable them to instal petrol and diesel pumps thereon. When his representations were not heeded to, he, in June 1970, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in this Court challenging the notifications issued by the Government. His case was that the acquisition in question was a colourable exercise of its authority by the State Government, inasmuch as the land was intended to be used for a purpose other than the construction of a bus-stand for which it had been specifically acquired. According to him, if the acquisition was really for the Corporation, as it seemed to be so, because the entire compensation had to be paid by it, it was obligatory on the State Government to have followed the procedure laid down in part VII of the Act, which dealt with acquisition for Companies. He also said that it was not open to the Government to change the public purpose for which the land had been acquired and it could be used only for the purpose for which it had been originally acquired.

(2.) This petition was contested by the Government and ultimately it was rejected by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Judge was of the view that there was no evidence on the record to warrant the assumption that at the time when the impugned notifications were issued, the State Government did not propose to construct the bus-stand, and it intended to acquire the land for some other purpose. The acquisition, according to the learned Judge, would have been bad in law if at the time when it was made, there was lack of bona fides on the part of the Government and the object really was to use the authority vested in it for some extraneous purpose. The acquisition, in the instant case, was bona fide in as much as the Government had actually spent Rs. 66,000/- towards the construction of the bus-stand and it was only when the Ministry changed and for reasons best known to the Government it thought that the bus-stand should not be located at the place in question. The learned Judge further held that the land was acquired for an urgent purpose and it vested in the State Government in the year 1968 after the requisite notifications had been issued and its possession taken, irrespective of the fact whether the award had been made by the Collector or not. After the State Government had become the owner of the property, it was open to it to use the land for any purpose it liked, so long as it could not be shown that all that was done for some extraneous reasons, for which there was, according to the learned Judge, no evidence on the record in the present case. The owner of the land was only entitled to compensation. He could not claim that if the purpose, for which the acquisition had been made, was changed, the property should be returned to him. It was further found by the learned Judge that in spite of the fact that the entire compensation for the land given to the Corporation, had to be paid by it, there was no necessity to comply with the provisions of part VII of the Act, because the original acquisition was not for the Corporation. Against this decision, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by Suresh Verma.

(3.) There is no manner of doubt that the plot of land in which is included the land in dispute, was acquired by the State Government for a public purpose, namely, the construction of a bus-stand. Thereafter, possession of the land was also taken and thereupon by virtue of the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, it vested in the State Government. The notifications in that connection were issued in June, 1968. It appears that the appellant had no complaint against this acquisition, because he did not file any writ petition challenging the said notifications soon after they were issued. The writ, as already mentioned above, was filed after two years, i.e. in June, 1970. The case of the appellant was that his grievance arose only when the Government decided to hand over the land acquired from him to the Corporation and this was in the middle of 1969, with the result that he started making representations to the Chief Minister against this step. One of the grievances of the appellant was that this Was a colourable exercise of the power vested in the State Government, when it acquired the land for one purpose and later on used the same for a different one. This argument, in my opinion, will have force only, if it could be shown that at the time of the original acquisition, the State Government was acting mala fide, in the sense that at that very point of time it had decided to give the land, after acquisition, to the Corporation. That is not the position in the instant case. In June, 1968, when the notifications were issued, the Government had the intention of constructing a bus-stand on the land in question. It, therefore, took its possession and actually started construction thereon, with the result that they spent a huge amount of Rs. 66,000/-. It was because of the change in the Ministry that this original decision was altered and it was decided to put this land to some other public use. The fact that the Government in reality spent a large amount towards the construction of a bus-stand clearly proved that it had the firm intention of building a bus-stand, for which the land had been acquired. There was no mala fide motive on its part and the original acquisition was not for some extraneous consideration. This was also the finding of the learned single Judge and the counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade us to take a different view regarding this matter. We therefore, have to proceed on the basis that the original acquisition was a bona fide one and the requirements of the law had been fully complied with at that time.