TEJA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of CWP Nos. 9006 and 5349 of 1995 also, as common questions of law are involved in all these petitions.

(2.) BRIEFLY in seriatim and chronological order the facts in order to deal with the challenge by the petitioners to the acquisition of their land measuring about 22 bighas are: the notifications Under Sections 4 and 6 were issued for acquisition of the land on 6.4.1992 and 8.4.1992 respectively. The urgency provisions for acquisition of the land as provided Under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were invoked, dispensing with the procedure for affording an opportunity of hearing to the persons interested Under Section 5 -A of the ibid Act. Notifications were published in the newspapers and lastly in the locality on 6.6.1992. As a consequence of the acquisition proceedings, 80% of the compensation qua the acquired land was paid to the persons interested on 20.4.1993/3.6.1993, and possession was taken over. The land was further given to the allottees on 3.6.1994. Award was pronounced on 11.10.1994 and balance amount of compensation to the tune of 20% was offered. Learned counsel for the petitioners impugned the acquisition proceedings inter alia contending, since the award was pronounced after lapse of two years after Section 6 notification, consequently in view of provisions of Section 11 -A of the Act, the acquisition proceedings elapsed by afflux of time. It is further contended, no award can be passed without the prior approval of the State Government, while herein the approval of the Financial Commissioner, Revenue was taken post -facto, which is in violation of Rule 41 of the Financial Commissioner Standing Order No. 28. Thus no award would be deemed to have been passed. In order to support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on State of UP and Ors. etc. v. Rajiv Gupta and Anr. etc.,, AIR 1994 SC 527 wherein it was observed:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has refuted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the provisions of Section 11 -A of the Act would not apply, in as much as the urgency provisions Under Section 17 of the Act were invoked, 80% of the compensation was paid, possession was taken and the land stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his contention has relied on Satendra Prasad Jain and Ors. v. State of UP and Ors., : A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2517.