DEVINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY a notification dated March 30, 1990 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act'), the State of Haryana made its intention known for acquiring a big chunk of land measuring about 290 acres for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilisation of land for residential, commercial and institutional area at Rewari under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 197/7 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) in the area of villages Jhanjanwas, Dumewas, Reweri, Dhaliwas and Piwara. Tehsil and District Rewari. It was mentioned therein that any person interested who had an objection to the acquisition of the land could within a period of 30 days of the publication of the notification file his objections in writing before the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Gurgaon. The land was being acquired for the planned development of Sector 4 in Rewari. The land sought to be acquired included a small area measuring 1 kanal 6 marlas comprised in rectangle No. 231 killa No. 15/1 belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner who had constructed two rooms and a hall with boundary wall over his land filed objections under Section 5A of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector. One of the primary objections raised was that his land had a construction thereon, and, therefore, in terms of the Government Instructions on the subject it should have been exclude 1 from acquisition. After issuance of the aforesaid notification, a committee under the chairmanship of Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon was constituted which was required to make a report after surveying the area sought to be acquired, particularly in regard to the houses and other buildings that stood constructed thereon. The committee inspected the site on 1.2.1991 an made its recommendations. It recommended that an area of about 45 acres which was outside Sector 4 and within the agricultural zone was zig -zag in shape and in view of the development plan it could not be utilized for any purpose by HUDA. The committee, therefore, recommended for the release of this land from acquisition, After disposing of the objections filed by various land owners and interested persons, the State Government finalised the acquisition and issued a notification under Section 6 of the Act on March 27, 1991 acquiring a total area of about 254 acres. The remaining land which was earlier included in the notification under Section 4 of the Act was released. While finalising the acquisition, the State Government has released the remaining land belonging to a large number of persons on the ground that there was construction over the same which could be adjusted in the development plan. The released land has been shown in yellow colour in the Shajra cum survey plan which was produced in Court at the time of hearing. The petitioner then moved the authorities for the release of his land as well on the ground that it also had construction thereon. The District Town Planner, Rewari as per his communication dated 31.7.1991 recommended to the Director, Urban Estates, Haryana that the land of the petitioner be released and he had relied on the recommendations of the committee which was headed by Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon. In spite of this recommendation, land of the petitioner has not been released and he, therefore, filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the notifications under S.4 and 6 of the Act acquiring the land in question. It may be mentioned that the Land Acquisition Collector . disposing of the objections filed by the petitioner at Serial No. 299 held that his land was vacant because the building constructed thereon was found locked at the time of survey and, therefore, the name of the owner could not be then verified. This is clear from the letter dated February 20, 1992 (Annexure P -3 with the writ petition) addressed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Gurgaon to the Director, Urban Estates, Chandigarh. It is common case of the parties before us that after the issuance of the notification under Section 6 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on March 24, 1993.

(2.) WHILE challenging the aforesaid notifications acquiring the land, the first argument of Mr.CB. Goel, Advocate appealing for the petitioner is that on making the award under Section 11 of the Act, the Collector has not paid the amount of compensation to the petitioner nor has the same been deposited by him in Court and therefore, the mandatory provisions of Section 31 of the Act having been violated, the acquisition proceedings stand violated. The contention is devoid of merit and we have no hesitation in rejecting the same. The firm stand of the respondents in their written statement is that the award was announced on March 24, 1993 and the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner is lying unpaid and that he is at liberty to withdraw the same in accordance with law. In view of this categoric stand, it is clear that the amount of compensation stands deposited in Court and that provisions of Section 31 as alleged by the petitioner have not been violated. Moreover, the language of sub -section(l) of Section 31 of the Act makes it clear that on the making of the award under Section 11 of the Act, the Collector has to tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested and entitled thereto according to the award. He has also to pay to them that amount unless prevented in any or more of the contingencies which are mentioned in sub -section(2) of Section 31. What is required is that the Collector should be in a position to make payment of compensation to the land owners whose land has been acquired and not that he should be in possession of that amount in cash so as to pay to the land owners then and there in Court. Sub -section(l) of Section 31 of the Act contemplates that the Collector should on the making of the award have the capacity to pay the amount of compensation to the land owners. In the case before us, there is noting on the record to show that the Collector had not the capacity to pay the amount to the petitioner or any other land owner. In fact the stand taken is that the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner is lying unpaid which obviously means that it is lying with the Court from where the petitioner can withdraw when he wants. It is obvious that the Collector must have deposited the amount of compensation in the court. Again, even if one were to assume that the Collector did not have the capacity to pay the compensation when the award was made, that by itself, in our opinion, will not render the acquisition proceedings invalid. A reading of Section 31 of the Act clearly shows that the consequence of non -compliance of provisions of sub -section(l) or sub -section(2) thereof is not that the acquisition proceedings become invalid. The only effect would be that the land owners whose land has been compulsorily acquired will become entitled to claim and recover the amount of compensation from the State Government. Wherever the Legislature intended that the consequence of non -compliance of any provision of the Act would result in making the acquisition proceedings invalid, it has specifically said so. For instance, after a declaration has been made under Section 6 of the Act to the effect that any land is required for a public purpose, Section 11 -A of the Act requires that the Collector shall make his award within two years from the date of that declaration and the Legislature has specifically provided that if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for acquisition of sub -section (1) or sub -section(2) of Section 31 of the Act, was to result in making the acquisition proceedings invalid, the Legislature would have made a similar provision in this section as well. As there is no such provision in Section 31 similar to the one in Section 11 -A, it must be held that non -compliance with the provisions of sub -section(l) or sub -section(2) of Section 31 does not by itself invalidate the acquisition proceedings.

(3.) IN Chandra Bansi Singh v. State of Bihar, : AIR 1984 S.C. 1767, a large tract of land belonging to several persons was sought to be acquired, for the purpose of construction of houses and allotment to the people belonging to low and middle income group by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act. About six years thereafter, the land belonging to a particular family was released by the Government which was held to be an act of favouritism and the release was held to be bad and non est. Learned Judges of the apex Court held that the entire notification issued under Section 4 of the Act would be deemed to be valid and the land released to the family would form part of the acquisition as it initially did.