DAYA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India became necessary only because of a very rigid and unimaginative attitude adopted not only by the Land Acquisition Collector but also by the Court. They have both failed to exercise their inherent jurisdiction ex debito justitiae, to do that substantial justice for which alone they exist.

(2.) THE petitioner and his sons own plots of land around the new bus stand and railway station of the fast developing town of Jagraon in Ludhiana district. These lands were acquired by the Government by two separate sets of Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. There was a difference of about two months in the publication of initial Notifications under Section 4 of the Act, but it may appear that there was no marked fluctuation of prices during this short period. The public purpose mentioned in both the sets of Notifications was the building of godowns for the storage of food grains. Two Notifications had become necessary because some of the godowns were to be built by the Food corporation of India while the remaining godowns were to be built on adjoining tracts of land by the Food and Supplies Department of Punjab.

(3.) THE petitioner's land was affected by both these sets of Notifications. The Land acquisition Collector had awarded the petitioner and other owners of adjoining lands compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre in both the cases. On references made on the applications of the land owners under S. 18 of the Act, the land Acquisition Court had enhanced the rate to Rs. 30,300/- per acre. This enhancement has been granted uniformly in all the other cases, it has been stated at the bar that regular first appeals have been filed by the land owners who are not satisfied even with this enhancement to more than twice the rate fixed by the collector. In reply to paragraph 14 (vii) of the writ petition the respondents have stated that the Government had also decided to file an appeal against the enhancement of the rate, though it is not clear whether such appeals have actually been filed by the Government or not.