SURAT SINGH ENGINEER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the acquisition proceedings whereby the land of the petitioners has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the act ). The primary ground of challenge is that the State Government disposed of the objections filed by the petitioners without affording any opportunity of hearing to them.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this petition may first be noticed.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by Shri I. S. Bindra, Secretary, Industries, Punjab, Chandigarh it is pleaded that petitioner 2 is not the owner of the land in question and filing of objections by him was a meaningless exercise. It is further submitted that substance of the notification under Section 4 was given wide publicity in the village on 19. 6. 1991 by beat of drum and an entry to this effect was made in the daily diary register at serial number 417. A copy of the substances of the notification is also said to have been pasted on outer wall of the Patwar Khana. It is further pleaded in the written statement that even though petitioner 1 owns the land as claimed by him, he did not file any objections under Section 5-A of the Act in spite of the publication of the notification and its substance in the village. The respondents have prayed the writ petition be dismissed because petitioner 1 did not file any objections and petitioner 2 is not the owner of any land. The petitioners filed a replication controverting the averments made by the respondents in their written statements. It was reiterated that the full name of petitioner 2 is Kirpal Singh son of Narinder Singh and that he owns 4 Kanals of land in village Mundian Khurd. A copy of the jamabandi wherein petitioner 2 is shown to be owning the land was attached as Annexure P5 along with the replication. The other averment to the effect that petitioner 1 did not file any objection was also denied and it is stated that the respondents have made a false plea in this Court. It is pleaded in the replication that the objections were sent by registered post, and the true copies of the postal receipt and also the acknowledgment receipt received by the petitioner have been appended as Annexure P6 and P7 with the replication. It is also pleaded by the petitioners that since petitioner 1 filed his objections and petitioner 2 is the owner of the land as per the revenue record, their objections have not been considered and, therefore, the entire acquisition proceeding are null and void. Thereafter Shri Ashok Kumar Sikka, PCS, Collector, Land Acquisition, Industries Department, Punjab filed an additional affidavit with the permission of the Court in which it was again reiterated on behalf of the respondents that petitioner 2 is not the owner of the land as alleged by him in the replication. It was further stated that copy of the jamabandi for the year 1986-87 which was attached as Annexure P5 with the replication was not a correct document and that in fact the correct copy of the jamabandi was as appended with this additional affidavit as Annexure R-1. It was, however, admitted that petitioner 1 had filed his objections and the explanation furnished for making incorrect averment in the written statement was that the name of the this petitioner was wrongly typed as Surjit Singh son of Harnam Singh at serial number 284 of the list of objectors whereas his correct name is Surat Singh. It was further stated that his objections were disposed of in accordance with law. Petitioners then again sought permission from this Court and produced a certified copy of the jamabandi as Annexure P-13 in which petitioner 2 is shown owner of the land as claimed by him. In pursuance to the directions issued by this Court, the respondents produced the original record in Court and the same has been perused. It is clear from the record and is now admitted on behalf of the respondents that petitioner 2 is the owner of the land as claimed by him. The original jamabandi from the revenue department has been produced in Court and the name of petitioner 2 stands recorded therein in the column of ownership. The explanation furnished for the wrong averments made in the written statement and in the additional affidavit is that the name of petitioner 2 was wrongly recorded by the Patwari as Nirmal Singh in the copy of the jamabandi which was supplied by the revenue department to the Land Acquisition Collector and it is on that basis that the averment was made. It is further explained that when the petitioner produced the certified copy in this Court the Land Acquisition Collector checked the original record and the error was detected. Accordingly a correction has been made in the land acquisition award and also in form VII-LA. In view of what has been stated above, I am proceeding on the basis that petitioner 1 that filed his objections within time and that petitioner 2 who had also filed his objections is also the owner of the land which has been acquired.