SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are owners of the land in dispute which is situated in the revenue estate of village Pakhote, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur. This land was acquired by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called 'the Act') for Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, respondent No. 3, in order to construct a 33 KV Sub-Station at village Pathoke. A notice under Section 4 of the Act (Annexure P.1) was published in the official Gazette dated September 14, 1982. It was followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act, which was published in the Government Gazette on January 24, 1983 (Annexure P.2). A notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued to the right-holders to file their claims for compensation on March 15, 1983 (Annexure P.3). Eventually an award was given by the Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, respondent No. 2, on March 15, 1983. The petitioners have claimed a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the notifications Annexures P.1 and P.2, the notice (Annexure P.3) and the award (Annexure P.4) mainly on two grounds. The first ground is that the publication of the substance of notification under Section 4 of the Act was not made in the locality simultaneously. It was published four days after the notification under Section 4 of the Act which prevented the petitioners from filing objections against the proposed acquisition under Section 5-A of the Act. The second ground is that the Punjab State Electricity Board respondent No. 3, for whom the land was acquired, is a Company as defined under Section 3(e) of the Act and as such it was incumbent upon the Acquisition Authority to comply with the mandatory provisions contained in Part VII of the Act and since these mandatory provisions were not adhered to the acquisition is void.

(2.) The respondents while resisting the writ petition denied that there was any delay in the publication of the substance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the locality. It was also denied that the Punjab State Electricity Board, respondent No. 3, is a Company as defined under Section 3(e) of the Act and it was, therefore, contended that there was no need to comply with the provisions contained in Part VIII of the Act. It was further contended that the petitioners having made a reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation are barred from challenging the validity of the acquisition and further that the acquisition proceedings having been completed the petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief in this writ petition.

(3.) Admittedly the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the Government Gazette on September 14, 1982. The substance of its contents were published in the locality four days thereafter on September 18, 1982, which is evident from Annexure P.5. It is, therefore, clear that there was a delay of four days in the publication of substance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the locality. The respondents have not offered any explanation for this delay. In view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Rattan Singh V. The State of Punjab, 1976 78 PunLR 545, it amounts to non-compliance, with the mandatory requirement of Section 4(1) of the Act which makes the acquisition bad in law. Relying upon the said Full Bench judgment a Division Bench of this Court held in Murari lal Bhargava and others V. The State of Haryana and others, 1977 RajdhaniLR 377, as follows :-