HARDAYAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A small area of land measuring 14 kanals was notified for acquisition on 4th February 1974 to ameliorate the sufferings of landless Harijans for providing a small dwelling unit to them in a colony that was to be established by the Government on this piece of land. A period of almost three decades has gone by and yet, the object for which land was acquired, has not been achieved, thus, rendering a section of the society unable to get over the problem of home stead, so essential for life. The present case provides classic example where a welfare scheme, envisaged by the Government for providing a small dwelling unit to the most needed section of the society, has been thwarted by some influential persons, like petitioner, in connivance with the Government officials. This injustice caused to the weaker section of the society, endeavored by the influential persons, like petitioner, is sought to be perpetuated by means of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) HARDAYAL Singh, who appears to be fighting a proxy litigation, as would emanate from the facts to be given hereinafter, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the State of Punjab, officers of the Government and 64 others, to quash notification dated 4th February, 1974 (Annexure P.7), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 (for short 'the Act') as also notification under Section 6, notice under Section 9 and award announced, pursuant to the notifications, in 1974.

(3.) PURSUANT to notice issued by this Court, two separate written statements, one on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the other on behalf of respondent No. 55 have been filed. Respondent No. 55 has also filed an application for vacation of stay which was granted by the Motion Bench, to which petitioner also filed reply. It has, inter alia, been pleaded in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that actual physical possession of the land was taken on 13th August, 1999 as per directions given by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 15950 of 1998. In the interim order dated 20th July, 1999 it was made clear that Government would take actual physical possession of the land acquired for the purpose of giving plots to Scheduled Castes person. Rapat Roznamcha dated 13th August, 1998, Annexure P.1 is stated to be substantive proof of taking actual physical possession. After taking possession, the department had given land in question to 26 scheduled castes persons of village Mithri Budhgir, out of 63 original allottees in whose names the land was transferred. It is then pleaded that petitioner was not the owner of the property in dispute in 1974 when it was acquired by the Government. At that time, Aziz son of Ahmed, Diwan Singh son of Chandra Singh and Ram Singh son of Fateh Singh were owners of the land and they had not challenged mutation Nos. 1566 and 1567 and if no compensation had been paid, they would have challenged the acquisition proceedings or mutations at that stage. It is then pleaded that Surinder Singh son of Harchand Singh, in connivance with some of the respondents, filed an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Faridakot, in which injunction orders were passed. This point was taken in Civil Writ Petition wherein it was held that injunction order passed by learned additional District Judge would operate only qua persons, who were defendants/respondents in the said proceedings and it could not bind the Government from taking possession of the acquired land. It is also pleaded that land was acquired as per the provisions of the Act and the said proceedings could not be challenged at such a belated stage.