MOHD SALIM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a request made by the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), the State of Punjab by a notification dated August 12, 1991 acquired 7 kanals and 18 marlas of land belonging to the petitioners for a public purpose, namely, for the purpose of the construction of Disposal Works by the Board in Malerkotla, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur under the Punjab Urban Renewal Project. This notification was issued under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') Further, in exercise of the powers under the Act, the State Government directed that action under S. 17 (2) shall be taken in this case on the ground of urgent importance of the public purpose and it was also directed that the provisions of S. 5-A of the Act shall not apply in regard to this acquisition. The declaration under S. 6 of the Act was made by another notification issued in the same day. Both these notifications were impugned in the present writ petition.

(2.) ONE of the grounds on which the notifications were challenged was that these had been issued on the same day which was in contravention of the mandatory provisions of sub-sec. (4) of S. 17 of the Act. During the pendency of the petition, the State Government withdrew the notification issued under S. 6 of the Act and issued a fresh one under the same provisions on August 11, 1992. Petitioners were then allowed to amend the petition to challenge the subsequent notification. The ground that both the notifications were issued on the same day, therefore, no longer survives,

(3.) IT was strenuously urged on behalf of the petitioners that the notification issued under S. 4 is, on the face of it, in contravention of the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of S. 17 of the Act inasmuch as it does not mention that the land sought to be acquired was waste or arable nor does the notification state that in the opinion of the Government there was an urgency to take recourse to the provisions of S. 17. The other ground on which the acquisition proceedings have been challenged is that the Collector did not give any public notice at convenient places on or near the land sought to be acquired and nor did he invite claims to compensation.