PREM SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present judgment, I propose to dispose of C. W. P. Nos. 12936, 13958 and 14898 of 1991. The facts have been taken from C. W. P. No. 12936 of 1991.

(2.) THE petitioners are owners of land, details whereof have been given in Annexure P -. 1 to the petition, situated within the Notified Area Committee, (in short 'nac') Manimajra, Union Territory Chandigarh. It has been averred that Manimajra was declared a notified area vide Notification dated 12th April, 1976, and certain Sections of the Punjab Municipal Act. 1971, (hereinafter called the 'municipal Act') which include Sections 3, 53, 58 and 192 etc. were extended to this area with effect from 11th June, 1976. It has also been averred that by virtue of Sections 242 and 243 of the Municipal Act, a NAC is deemed to be a Municipal Committee and the area, thereof to be a Municipality. It has been averred in the writ petition that respondent No. 1 i e. the Union Territory Administration issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter called the 'act') for acquisition of the land mentioned in Annexure P-]. The Notification was published in the Chandigarh Administration Gazette on 28th June, 1990 and a copy, thereof has been appended with the petition as Annexure P-2. Respondent No. 1 thereafter issued another Notification dated 24th June, 1991, purporting to be under Section 6 of the Act and the same was published in the Chandigarh Administration Gazette on 24th June, 1991, a copy having been appended as Annexure P-3 with the petition In para No. 7 of the petition it has been alleged that the Notifications aforesaid had not been published in the manner provided by the Act inasmuch as that in addition to the Notifications in the Gazette, they were required to be published in two daily news papers, out of which, one was required to be published in the regional language and also that public notice of the substance of the notifications was to be given at convenient places in the locality. The writ petition, further, goes on to say that the acquisition of land for the purposes of providing residential accommodation to citizens was not a public purpose as defined in Section 3 (f) of the Act; that the NAC could not acquire this land before the sanction of the Scheme for the land was being acquired; that about 8 acres of land which had been proposed to be acquired under Section 4 of the Act was exempted at the time when the declaration under Section 6 thereof was made and this amounted to discrimination; and that the public notice of the substance of the notification in the locality had been given at the instance of the NAC and not the Union Territory Administration.

(3.) IN reply to the petition the stand of the respondents is that the Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act had been duly published as provided by the mandatory provisions of the law. The acquisition of land for the development of residential-cum-Commercial Complex Scheme was a public purpose; that there was no requirement of law that before the land was acquired for being utilized under the Municipal Act, a Scheme regarding utilization of the land had to be prepared and that exemption had been made qua a small parcel of land that was proposed to be acquired after due deliberation.