EDWARDGUNJ PUBLIC WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the Edwardgunj Public Welfare Association, Malout Mandi (hereinafter called the Association) to challenge two notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act), issued on the 12th August, 1961 and the 2nd May, 1966, respectively. It arises out of these facts :

(2.) After taking a good many adjournments, the learned counsel for the State has succeeded in procuring and placing on the record a copy of the Punjab Government Notification No. 4870-ASI-62/24334, dated the 21st July, 1962, evidencing that the powers under Section 3(c) of the Act, were conferred on Shri Hardial Singh, the then Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Muktsar, for the whole of Ferozepore District. In view of this, the first ground of attack is not sustainable.

(3.) As regards the second ground, an affidavit of Shri Hardial Singh, the then Collector, Muktsar has been placed on the record. He has sworn in reply to para Nos. 6, 7 and 12 of the petition; that on the 16th June, 1964, at Malout, the petitioners' arguments were fully heard in connection with their objections which they had filed earlier. The petitioners were given full opportunity to adduce evidence, if any in support of their objections, but they did not produce any evidence. Shri Hardial Singh has refuted the allegation of the petitioners that no opportunity to adduce any evidence was given to them. He has further averred that he had inspected the water works at the spot. The averments in the affidavit of Shri Hardial Singh are supported by the departmental record that has been produced. There is a 'Note of written arguments' submitted by the counsel for the petitioners on the departmental file. On the previous date of hearing before the Collector that is, on the 26th May, 1964, the counsel for the petitioners was present. The case was then adjourned to June 16, 1964, that is, an adjournment of 21 days was granted. It is apparent from these interlocutory orders and the 'Note of written arguments' submitted by the petitioners that no prayer whatever was made to the Collector that the petitioners wanted to produce any evidence in support of their objections. If the petitioners were so minded, they should have produced their evidence or asked for such an opportunity for producing evidence before submitting their written arguments. In any case, they should have said in their written arguments that they wanted to adduce evidence in support of their objections. Obviously, this plea regarding the denial of opportunity to produce evidence, is an after-thought. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the requirements of law and the direction issued by the Court in the previous Writ Petition had been fully complied with.