BALBIR KAUR Vs. UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I propose to decide 16 connected Civil Writ Petitions bearing No. 9430, 9491, 9489, 9780, 9781, 10973, 10276, 10113, 10114, 10275, 12086, 12720, 12694, 14145, 15667 of 1992 and 5569 of 1993, as common questions of law and fact are involved in all the writs. The learned Counsel representing the parties also suggest the Court that all these writ petitions should be decided in the manner proposed by the Court. The facts, however, been extracted from CWP No. 9430 of 1992, (Balbir Kaur v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others).

(2.) Challenge herein is to notification dated 27th of November, 1991, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and follow up declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 12th June, 1992, Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively, by respondent-Union Territory, Chandigarh. Petitioner owns Khasra No. 84/22/ 1/2, 21/2, 21/1/1 measuring 2 Kanal 14 Marlas. She constructed a Farm House-cum-Cattle Shed and Poultry Shed which is in existence for the last 20 years. It is, however, her case that Hanimajra was declared notified area vide Chandigarh Administration, Finance department notification dated 12th of April, 1976 and certain sections of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 were extended to this notified area vide notification dated 11th June, 1976. The Chandigarh Administration, vide Gazette notification dated 27th of November, 1991, sought to acquire land measuring 17.63 acres at village Daria and 80.83 acres of land in village Mani Majra (Chandigarh) under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for a public purpose namely for Afforestation, by the Forest Department, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh. Vide notification aforesaid all those persons interested could file objections under Section 5 within one month from the date of publication. In due course of time i.e. on June 23, 1992 respondent-Union Territory, Chandigarh finally decided to acquire the land fully detailed above and, therefore, issued declaration under Section 6. The acquisition has been challenged on variety of grounds but what has been pressed at the time of arguments is that no proper publication of notification under Section 4 was given, thus, depriving the petitioners of their statutory right of filing objections under Section 5-A of the Act as also that the land of petitioners being located in a notified area committee to which Committee the provisions of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 are applicable, no notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 could at all be issued as also that no public purpose could at all be achieved when the petitioners had already developed the land into farm houses, nurseries or poultry farms. In other words, it is the case of the petitioners that they were also engaged in the public purpose by developing their land into farm houses, nurseries of poultry farms and the Government could not achieve any public purpose when in achieving the so-called public purpose, public purpose undertaken by the petitioners was to come to an end.

(3.) The matter has been contested on all fronts. However, there is no need at present to give detailed pleadings incorporated in the written statement contesting the claim of the petitioners. As and when necessary, while dealing with the points raised by Mr. V. Ram Swaroop, reference shall be made to the same.