HARI CHAND BISHNA RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, for impugning notifications dated June 11, 1953, issued under Section 4 (1) and notification, dated April 3, 1957, under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), and the Award, dated May 29, 1965. Notification under section 4 (1) of the Act was also coupled with a direction under section 17 that action would be taken on urgency basis and the provisions of section 5-A of the Act would not apply.

(2.) THE petitioners alleged that the land in dispute, measuring 32 Kanals and 11 marlas, situated in the revenue estate of village Parowal, Tehsil Garhshankar, was evacuee property and subsequently after the coming into force of the Displaced persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the 'rehabilitation Act') it was acquired by the Central Government under Section 12 of that Act. On June 11, 1953, a notification under Section 4 was published that the whole area of village Parowal was likely to be acquired by the Government as its expense for brick-kiln. On April 3, 1957, another notification under Section 6 was published that 4. 07 acres of land in the village, shown in the map which could be inspected at the spot, had been acquired for brick-kiln. It was also stated in this notification that the Collector was being directed under Section 7 to take order of the acquisition of the said land. The land in dispute was by order No. 266/3-B, dated 27-7-1964, allotted by the Government to one Sansara son of Arjan, and that the mutation was attested in the name of the allottee immediately thereafter. A Sanad of allotment (Annexure 'f') was also issued on July 27, 1964, in favour of the aforesaid allottee. Sansara allottee died and the mutations No. 1354, dated june 2, 1965, Nos. 1340, 1341 and 1354 all the three dated April 21, 1965, were sanctioned in favour of the deceased's daughter, Shrimati Dhan Devi. By a registered deed dated July 2, 1965, this Dhan Devi sold the land in dispute to the petitioners for a sum of Rupees 26,000/ -. The vendees petitioners then applied to the Revenue Officer for attestation of the mutation in their favour on the basis of the sale. The revenue authorities not only refused to do so, but instead, attested mutation No. 1383, dated June 25, 1966, in favour of the State Government on the basis of an Award made by the Collector on May 29, 1965. The petitioners alleged that it was on June 25, 1966 that they for the first time, came to know that Punjab State had some interest in the land in dispute when the mutation was attested in favour of the State Government.

(3.) IN their written-statement, the Respondent-State admitted that the land in dispute was evacuee property and had been acquired by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Rehabilitation Act. It was not denied that the land had been allotted in favour of Sansara. It was, however, averred that no mutation was sanctioned in favour of Sansara. It was further clarified that mutation No. 1383 was attested in favour of the Respondent-State after the announcement of the collector's award, dated May 29, 1965. It was denied that the land was ever in the physical possession of Sansara. It was also stated that possession of the land was taken by the Government through Respondent No. 2, in 1953. It was denied that the department intended to transfer the land in dispute in favour of Respondent no. 4 (Shri Hardit Singh Contractor ). It was pleaded that notice under Section 9 was duly issued.