SUBEDAR SAMANDAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner owns some land including the pieces comprised in Khasra No. 279 in village Gopipur Khera, Tehsil Palwal, District Gurgaon. In the said Khasra number he has planted some fruit trees. On December 30, 1961, the Punjab government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called the Act, notifying the requirement of the Government for acquiring 136. 94 acres of land comprised in various villages including 15. 71 acres in the petitioner's village Gopikhera at public expense for constructing Rampur distributary from R. D. 43500 to tail Rule D. 129560 taking off at mile 9 fur. 4 and 40 yards left of Agra canal. In the specification of the land notified, the Khasra numbers or the names of owners of the particular land were not specified. The following description was, however, added to the entire specification:-

(2.) THIS was followed by Punjab Government notification dated 12th January 1962 (Annexure 'b') under Section 6 of the Act, wherein the same description of the property was given and the same note was added to the effect that the land which was acquired had been demarcated at site. It was also mentioned in the notification that plans of the land may be inspected in the offices of the Land acquisition Officer, Rohtak District, and of the Executive Engineer, Gurgaon Canal division, Faridabad.

(3.) THE petitioner's case is that subsequent to the notification under Section 6 of the Act, the course of the Rampur Distributary was changed by the Canal authorities and that though the original alignment marked 'a', 'b', 'c' in the plan (Annexure 'd') did not at all affect the land of the petitioner, a part of his land comprised in Khasra No. 279 wherein fruit trees have been grown was earmarked for acquisition in revised alignment denoted by the dotted line B to D in the plan (Annexure 'd' ). Admittedly no fresh notification under Section 8 of the Act was issued by the State. The petitioner's son B. S. Lamba, who was serving in the army, made a written representation against the revised alignment on 14th november 1963 on getting information about the said fact from the petitioner The petitioner himself also submitted a representation. By letter dated 28th november 1963 (Annexure C') the petitioner's son was informed through the secretary, Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen Board, Gurgaon (through whom Mr. Lamba had represented) that the alignment laid at site was as per latest orders of the higher authority and that the Executive Engineer, Gaunchi Drainage Division, faridabad, was unable to change the alignment at that stage. It was added in the letter that notifications under Sections 4 and 8 of the Act had already been issued and even the award had been announced by the Land Acquisition Officer. At that stage the petitioner Piled this writ petition on 9th December, 1963 under articles 226/227 of the Constitution claiming an appropriate order or direction for quashing the last notification under Section 6 of the Act and the orders of the government, dated 28th November, 1963 rejecting the representation of the petitioner's son. While admitting the petition on the next day, the Motion Bench (Mehar Singh J. , as my Lord the Chief Justice then was, and Khanna J.) directed stay of digging operations and also dispossession of the petitioner ex parte. After hearing the respondents, however, Jindra Lal J. modified the ex parte stay order on 21st August 1964 so as to stay dispossession of the petitioner and the digging operations in his land only and permitted digging operations to be proceeded on the rest of the land.