INDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The three petitioners are owners of agricultural land in the revenue estate of village Ajitwal, tehsil Moga, district Ferozepore. On December 10 1969, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) was published in the Government Gazette that 23 Kanals and 12 Marlas of land described therein was needed by the Government at public expense for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of godowns for storage of foodgrains at Ajitwal. This notification (Annexure 'A') was coupled with a direction that action under Section 17 shall be taken in this case on the ground of urgency and that the provisions of Section 5(A) of the Act would not apply. In the same issue of the Gazette, another notification under Section 6 of the Act was published that the aforesaid land was required for the said public purpose. This was coupled with a direction under Section 17(2)(c) of the Act that the Collector shall proceed to take possession of the land acquired. It seems, on February 5, 1970, the Collector passed the order (copy Annexure 'B') in exercise of his powers, that the possession of the land acquired be taken after service of 15 days' notice. Possession of the land was, according to the return filed by the respondents, taken on April 25, 1970.

(2.) The petitioners impugn these notifications mainly on the ground that a part of the land acquired in Khasra No. 95/18, measuring 5 Marlas, was under a Kotha while Guava trees were standing in a part of the land, and, as such, the whole of the land in question was not waste or arable. At the Bar also, Mr. Y. P. Gandhi contends that the provisions of Section 5-A could be dispensed with under Section 17, sub-section (4), only if the land was waste or arable. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has cited Sarju Prasad Saha V. The State of U.P. and others, 1965 AIR(SC) 1763 Narayan Govind Gavate V. The State of Maharashtra,1971 73 BLR 873; and Nandeshwar Prasad and others V. U.P. Government and others, 1964 AIR(SC) 1217

(3.) It appears to me that the ratio of these cases is not applicable to the one before me. From the language of Section 17 as amended by the Punjab Acts, it is clear that whereas under sub-section (1) of Section 17, only waste or arable land can urgently be acquired, there is no such qualification with regard to land that can be acquired under sub-section (2) of the same Section. 'Land' as defined in Section 3 of the Act includes 'all things permanently fastened to the land'. That is to say, buildings or houses also fall within the definition of 'land'. Even in The Printers House Private Ltd. V. Misri Lal Dalip Singh and others, 1970 AIR(P&H) 1 (F.B.), Shamsher Bahadur, J., while generally examining the scope of sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 17 observed that under sub-section (2), any kind of land, even if it is not waste or arable, can be acquired. I have also emphasised this point in some unreported judgments. There is an unreported Division Bench judgment of this Court in Teja Singh and others V. Punjab State and others, Civil Writ 1270 of 1970, decided on May 19, 1970, wherein Mr. Justice D.K. Mahajan, speaking for the Bench, observed :-