HARDIAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the quashing of notification dated 22. 2. 1996 issued by respondent No. 1, a copy of which has been placed on record as annexure P1, acquiring land detailed therein for constructing link channel from RDO-17190 off taking from RD 184480/right Sirhind Feeder in Tehsil and District Muktsar. The said notification has been issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act ). The Government of Punjab further directed that the action under Section 17 of the Act shall be taken on the grounds of urgency and provision of Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply in regard to the acquisition of the land. The petitioners, residents of Tehsil and District Muktsar felt aggrieved against the, annexure P1, and they seek the issuance of the writ of certiorari for quashing the notification dated 22. 2. 1996, annexure P1, aforesaid.

(2.) THE grounds on which the impugned notification has been challenged are; (1) the impugned notification is totally uncalled for, arbitrary and based on malafide and extraneous considerations; (2) the impugned notification deprives the petitioners of their valuable right to file objections by wrongly invoking the provisions of Section 17 of the Act which are not called for in the facts of the present case. A large number of villagers are adversely affected by the proposed acquisition of land for construction of new water channel. The concerned gram panchayats have, in this connection, passed resolutions, the copies whereof have been placed on record as annexures P3 to P8; (3) the impugned notification has been issued at the behest of respondent No. 4, Shri H. S. Brar, Chief Minister of the State of Punjab just to appease the voters of parliamentary constituency from which his daughter contested the election. The impugned notification is, thus, vitiated on the grounds of malafide and extraneous considerations.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned D. A. G. Punjab for the respondents.