GURMEL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GURMEL Singh and others have filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and it has been further prayed that directions be also issued to the respondents i.e. State of Punjab and the Land Acquisition Officer, Faridkot restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners.

(2.) IT has been averred in the petition that no notification under Section 4 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) was issued by the respondents and it was mandatory on their part to do so when any land is to be acquired which is needed for public purposes. Such notification was supposed to be published in the official Gazette and in two Daily Newspapers circulating in that locality of which atleast one should be in the regional language. After the said notification under Section 4, it would be open for the Government to enter upon survey and take level of such land in that locality. It was also supposed to tender payment of necessary damages, if any. Thereafter the objections were supposed to be heard before the Collector. After complying with the provisions under Sections 4, 5 and 5-A of the Act a declaration can be made under Section 6 of the Act that the land is required for public purposes. After the declaration, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to issue notice to all the persons interested in the land to be acquired so that they may file the objections against the taking of the possession of the land. Thereafter, the Collector was supposed to assess the compensation. It is grouse of the petitioners that in the present case no notice under Section 4 of the Act was ever issued nor there was any publication. The compliance of Sections 5 and 5-A of the Act have not been done. The State Govt. has straightway adopted the procedure under Section 6 of the Act by issuing a notification which notification is also bad as it was not issued in accordance with the law nor it was circulated any newspaper. The notification under Section 6 dated 17.4.1964 came to the notice of the petitioners only on 18.1.1988 when certain officials of the respondents came to the land of the petitioners in order to take the possession. Even after the issuance of the notification under Section 6, the Collector did not give any order to take the possession under Section 7 of the Act. No notice was given to the landowners including the petitioners to file their objections under Section 9 of the said Act. It has also been pleaded that the entire alleged procedure, if any, had been adopted at the back of the landowners so much so the Collector failed in its statutory duty for non-complying the provisions of Section 12 of the Act when it did not serve notice upon the landowners regarding the passing of the award. The petitioners allege that the acquisition proceedings are arbitrary and in colourable exercise of the powers as no meaningful steps have been taken in the proceedings before the notification was issued. There was no genuine need of the land sought to be acquired and it was only with a view to peg down the market price of the acquired land.

(3.) I have heard Shri Ravinder Chopra, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioners and Shri P.S. Chhina, Sr. D.A.G., (Punjab), on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case and I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition has no merit.