LAWS(P&H)-1972-4-19

KISHORI LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On April 25, 1972
KISHORI LAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari after quashing the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) and further proceedings on their basis.

(2.) THE petitioner is owner of 3/4th share of Khasra No. 35/17/5 measuring 6 Marlas, and 1/2 share of Khasra No. 35/17/3, measuring 2 Marlas within the Municipal area of Ropar, Respondent 3 (M/s. The Ambala Bus Syndicate (P) Ltd. Ropar) is a co-sharer owning the remaining shares. The petitioner constructed a building on a part of the land about 40 or 50 hears ago and that portion is recorded in the Jamabandi as 'ghair Mumkin Makaan'. Dispute arose between the co-sharers over the possession and user of the shop on the land. It is alleged that under the influence of Respondent 3, the State Government (respondent 1) issued the impugned Notification, D/- November,. 20, 1968, published in the Punjab Government Gazette (Copy Annexure 'a') stating that the land specified therein was 'likely to be needed for the purpose and at the expense of Ambala Bus Syndicate Private Limited, Ropar namely, for the extension of Bus Stand for Ambala Bus Syndicate Private Limited. The petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A in the form of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 31-1-1969 to the Collector, Ropar. No decision, however, was taken thereon. No opportunity of hearing the objections was afforded to the petitioner nor was any decision taken thereon. On October 9, 1970, the impugned notification, dated September 30, 1970, under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Punjab Government Gazette (Annexure 'b' ). It was stated therein that the land was required for the aforesaid Syndicate at the expense of the Syndicate.

(3.) THESE acquisition proceedings are being challenged on the ground that they are mala fide and the provisions of the Act have been invoked as a colourable exercise of jurisdiction to acquire immovable property for the benefit of a private person and not for a public purpose.