SATNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Satnam Singh resident of village Kandial, District Gurdaspur, has sought to quash notifications Annexure P 2 and P 3 issued by the State of Punjab under section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') whereby his land in village Kandial was acquired.

(2.) Factual matrix of this case is that the State of Punjab, respondent No. 1. issued notification under section 4 of the Act on February 2, 1977 (Annexure P.2) giving out intention to acquire land including that of the petitioner for allotment as house-sites to landless workers in rural areas. Invoking the urgency clause under sub-section (4) of section 17 of the Act, it was also mentioned in the notification that section 5-A of the Act shall not apply to the proposed acquisition. This notification was followed by a notification under section 6 of the Act of the same date (Annexure P. 3). Publication under section 4(1) of the Act was made in the village on February 12, 1977. The impugned notifications have been assailed by the petitioner on two grounds. Firstly, that there was no justification to invoke section 17(4) to take away his right under section 5-A of the Act to file objections. Secondly, that the delay in publication under section 4(1) invalidated the notification.

(3.) The State of Punjab did not file any return to the writ petition. The Collector, Batala, District Gurdaspur filed a written statement wherein a simple denial was pleaded to the petitioner's allegation that there was no justification in the present case to invoke urgency clause contained in section 17(4) of the Act. No facts or particulars were stated in support of this contention. On the second point regarding delay in the publication under section 4(1) of the Act the reply given was that ten days' time taken in the publication was quite reasonable.