VIKAS GUPTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS 1 and 3 purchased land measuring 11 marlas and 8 sq. yards in village Chohak, Tehsil & District Jalandhar, whereas petitioners 2 and 3 also purchased land measuring 11 marlas and 8 sq. yards in the same very village in the year 1998. Together, thus, they own an area measuring 22 marls and 16 sq. yards. It is their case that they had purchased the land with a view to set up an agro based business and had raised construction on the land and had also got electric connection sanctioned from the Punjab State Electricity Board. This land became subject matter of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 when notification under Section 4 was issued on 27.4.2000, land was sought to be acquired for a public purpose, namely, for establishment of wireless monitoring station. When objections raised by the petitioners under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'Act') in their endeavour not to acquire the land, failed and declaration under Section 6 was issued, they filed present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act dated 27.4.2000 and 16.5.2001.

(2.) THE two fold challenge to the notifications aforesaid pertains to incompetence of the officer issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act as also discrimination in the matter of acquisition. It is pleaded and so urged by learned counsel representing the petitioners that notification, Annexure P-1, issued under Section 4 of the Act is liable to be quashed on the short ground that it has been issued by a person not authorised to do so. A perusal of the notification, Annexure P-1, it is alleged would show that it has been issued by the Superintending Engineer, Central Works Circle, PWD (B&R), Jalandhar-respondent No. 2 herein. It is the case of the petitioners that second respondent is only a Superintending Engineer and is not authorised to issue a notification under Section 4 of the Act as it is only the head of the Department, i.e., Secretary, who could have issued such a notification. It is further urged that even as per the Financial Commissioner's Standing Order No. 28 notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act have to be forwarded to the Secretary to Government concerned for publication in the official Gazette and two newspapers. A perusal of the notification, Annexure P-1, shows that this procedure has not been followed as it has been got published by the Superintending Engineer himself instead of the Secretary to the Government concerned. It is also the case of the petitioners that the State Government may not at all be aware about the initiation of the acquisition proceedings by the Superintending Engineer on the date when notification, Annexure P-1, was published in the official Gazette.

(3.) THERE are other grounds also pleaded challenging the notification, but as mentioned above, what has been urged before us during the course of arguments is what has already been mentioned above.