KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India impugning two Notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6, read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It arises out of these facts : On May 7, 1971, two Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17 of the Act appeared in the Punjab Government Gazette stating that the land specified therein, including Khasra Nos. 104/19/1 and 104/19/2, in the area of village Jhabal Kalan, Tehsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar was being acquired urgently for construction of a Mandi. The property belonged to one Kahla Singh who was residing in Assam. He died. Petitioner No. 1 is the sons and Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the grand-sons of the deceased. This compulsory acquisition is being impugned on various grounds out of which the following have now been pressed at the time of arguments :

(2.) In the written statement, dated 24-9-1971, filed by Shri Arjan Singh Dhugga, Extra Assistant Colonization Officer, Punjab, it is admitted that the Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were issued on 23-4-1971 and published in the Punjab Government Gazette on May 7, 1971. It has, however, been denied that the Notification under Section 6 preceded the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. In a subsequent affidavit, dated 15.3.1973, filed Miss Ravneet Kaur, Deputy Secretary to the Government, it is averred that, in fact, the Notification under Section 6 read with Section 17(2)(c) did not precede the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. It was through clerical "contingency" that an earlier despatch number was allotted to the Notification under Section 6 and a subsequent serial number to that under Section 4, it is further explained that since the setting up of the Mandi at Jhabal was considered to be a Public Purpose of urgent importance in the context of increased agricultural production in the State, that was why action was taken under Section 17(2)(c) read with sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act. It was averred that the provisions of Section 5-A were dispensed with on account of this urgency. There is also another affidavit, dated 5-3-1973, of Shri Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia, Extra Assistant Colonization Officer, in which it is averred that the award was announced on 7-1-1972 and possession of the acquired land had been taken earlier by the Government on 31-5-1971. The petitioners were given an opportunity to file a rejoinder to those affidavits but they have not chosen to do so.

(3.) Grounds (b) and (c) may not detain us long. In the returns filed by the Respondents, it is averred that public notice of the substance of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was given. It is clear from an entry, dated 26-5-1971, in the Roznamcha of the Patwari that the substance of the Notification was duly published at the spot. A copy of the entry made by the Patwari regarding this fact in his Roznamcha has also been filed. Ground (b) is, therefore, not tenable.