MEHTAB CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mehtab Chand and others, appellants, are the owners for the land in dispute. Notification, dated November 30, 1968 (Annexure 'A'), under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) was published in the Punjab Government Gazette, dated December 6, 1968, in respect of 3.01 aces of the land belonging to the Lal Chand respondent No. 3 as it was required for a public purpose, namely for the construction of a 33 K.V. Sub-Station at Bholath, tehsil and district Kapurthala. No urgency provision was invoked in that notification. That land was, however, not acquired and the petitioners' case is that this was due to extraneous influence exercised by respondent No. 3. Notification, dated January 8, 1969 (Annexure 'B'), was then published in the Punjab Government Gazette, dated January 17, 1969, for acquisition of five acres of land belonging to Banarsi Dass respondent No. 3 for the construction of the same 33 K.V. Sub-station at Bholath. This time the Governor of Punjab was pleased to direct in the said notification that action under Section 17 of the Act would be taken on grounds of urgency and provisions of Section 5-A of the Act will not apply in regard to the acquisition. Notification, dated January 10, 1969 (Annexure 'C'), containing the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also published in the Government Gazette in respect of the land of respondent No. 4. Once again the appellant's case is that it was due to the exercise of influence of certain named friend of respondent No. 4 that even his land was not acquired. This led to the issue of the impugned notification, dated September 3, 1969 (Annexure 'D'), published in the Punjab Government Gazette, dated September 12, 1969, for acquisition of 3.36 acres of land belonging to the present appellants for the purpose of the construction of the same 33 K.V. Sub-Station at Bholath for the Punjab State Electricity Board. Once again the urgency provisions of Section 17 were invoked in the notification and it was directed that the provisions of Section 5-A would not apply in regard to the acquisition. Notification Annexure 'E' under Section 6 of the Act in respect of the appellants' land was issued ten months later and was published in the Punjab Government Gazette, dated July 31, 1970. Notices Annexure F/1 to F/4 under Section 9(3) of the Act having been issued to the appellants on October 16, 1970, proceedings for determination of compensation were taken up which culminated with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, Annexure 'G', dated November 5, 1970. It was on December 17, 1970 that the appellants filed their writ petition impugning the notification Annexures 'D' and 'E' under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act, whereby the land of the appellants had been acquired without affording them any opportunity to object to the proposed acquisition under Section 5-A of the Act. At the time of the admission of the writ petition dispossession of the appellants from the land in dispute was stayed.

(2.) The only ground of attack against the impugned notification which appears to have been pressed before the learned Single Judge in support of the writ petition, and which has in any case been pressed before us by the appellants in this appeal is that the invoking of the urgency provisions under Sections 17(2)(a) and 17(4) of the Act as amended in Punjab was not bona fide and amounted to colourable exercise of the powers vested in the High Court under Section 17 of the Act, and was mala fide inasmuch as the urgency provisions were invoked without the Government having applied its mind to the mater, and this has resulted in debarring the appellants of their most valuable right under Section 5-A of the Act to object to the acquisition, because the circumstances of the case show that in fact there was no urgency, but the urgency provisions were invoked to avoid the appellants exposing the Government's conduct of releasing the land of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, and taking over the appellant's land. The appellants' case is that if the urgency provisions had not been invoked and the appellants had been allowed opportunity under Section 5-A they would have shown to the Government that the land in question could not be acquired as it was rich, fertile land as compared with the land of respondents 3 and 4 which was comparatively barren. The defence of the State was that "as per record, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act which was issued on November 3, 1968, was cancelled on asking by the Executive Engineer (Civil), Punjab State Electricity Board,' and that while giving up the land of respondent No. 4 the site was changed "on the asking of the Executive Engineer Civil Works Division, Patiala," as selection of the site was done by the Engineers of the Punjab State Electricity Board who were technical experts. It was further averred that the 33 KV transformer had already been installed in the Panchayat land and that the land belonging to the appellants is adjacent to it and has been acquired for the construction of the office and staff quarters which are an integral part of a sub-station. The allegations of malice and extraneous considerations were denied.

(3.) Respondent No. 3 in his separate written statement stated that the land which was sought to be acquired by notification Annexure 'A' belonged to him jointly with his two brothers Charan Dass and Om Parkash, and the said notification as well as the one relating to the land of respondent No. 4 were rightly cancelled as the appellants' land was more "proper", and the land of respondents 3 and 4 was more fertile and valuable, and would have burdened the Government with higher compensation. Respondent No. 4, however, stated in his separate written statement that the appellants' land is adjacent to the land on the other side of the road where the electricity sub-station has been installed, and that the notifications Annexures 'A' and 'C' were rightly cancelled as the appellants' land was more suitable for the public purpose in question than that of respondents 3 and 4. Regarding the use of influence of Kirpal Singh M.L.A. by the fourth respondents, the latter stated in paragraph 12 of his return that at the time of the notification Kirpal Singh was not a member of the Legislative Assembly and the High Court was at the time headed by S. Gurnam Singh, Leader of the Akali Party. The allegation of the appellants about the notification for the acquisition of the respondent's land having been cancelled under the influence of Kirpal Singh was denied.