GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the action of the State Government in issuing notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking to acquire their lands by invoking the urgency provisions contained in Section 17(2)(c) of the Act. The case of the petitioners as set out in the petition is that they are the owners in possession of the land situated in village Kurali, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar. The petitioners have raised construction on the area in question and some business activities are also going on in that area. The land is being acquired for the purpose of setting up New Mandi Township. In the year 1988, the area was selected for the said purpose but was not given effect to as the land of some Municipal Councillor fell in that area. Second time the land was selected but the acquisition was not carried out because of the involvement of the land of one Lakhbir Singh, nephew of Ex-MLA Raja Singh, who is stated to be the President of Municipal Committee, Kurali at present. The third time the area was selected and a notification was issued on 1.7.2002 but again at the instance of certain influential persons the notification was allowed to lapse. Now on 28.10.2003, the State Government has issued two notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and has invoked the urgency provisions contained in Section 17(2)(c)of the Act. The petitioners have sought to impugn these notifications primarily on the following four grounds:

(2.) The State Government and the Punjab Mandi Board have supported the process of acquisition to say that the acquisition and the invoking of urgency provisions were in accordance with the provisions of the Act and there was no infirmity in the action of the respondents in resorting to the acquisition. It was further submitted that the ground of mala fide was unsustainable as the acquisition is essential.

(3.) The primary contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners was that thrice on an earlier occasion the land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of setting up New Mandi Township but the acquisition was not carried out for the reason that the lands of influential persons were involved and now suddenly the Government has issued a notification on 28.10.2003 seeking to acquire the lands of the petitioners by invoking the urgency provisions, whereas no such urgency existed. Since the matter had been repeatedly raked up, therefore, there was no such urgency which would warrant the invocation of the urgency provisions thereby denying the petitioners' right to file objections under Section 5-A which is akin to a fundamental right. The petitioners also submitted that there was no publication of the notification under Section 4 and this violated the mandatory provisions of Section 4 of the Act. It was also contended in support of this argument that the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were issued on 28.10.2003, on the same day which is violative of the provisions of Section 17(4)of the Act. It was then contended that apart from this even if it is assumed that urgency existed even then the Government had failed to establish and record its satisfaction which was essential before dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. There is thus no application of mind by the State before dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act.