RAM SAHNI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 7438 of 2007 and 17333 of 2005 as common question of law and facts is involved in both the petitions. The facts are being taken from CWP No. 7438 of 2007. The petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for quashing notification dated 22.11.2004 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 ( Annexure P.1) and declaration dated 6.12.2004 made under Section 6 read with Section 17 ( Annexure P.2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act'). A further prayer for setting aside award dated 16.3.2007 (Annexure P.3) has also been made. When CWP No. 17333 of 2005 came up for consideration on 19.4.2007 a Division Bench of this Court stayed dispossession of the petitioner and in the connected petition i.e. CWP No. 7438 of 2007 interim directions were issued on 17.5.2007 which are continuing in both the cases till today.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case necessary for disposal of the controversy raised are that the petitioners (CWP No. 7438 of 2007) are enjoying perpetual lease on the land in dispute for a period of 99 years executed in their favour by the land owners and as such they are 'persons interested' in the land comprised in khasra No. 28//3 min (East) 5k-8m, 8/1 min (east) 1k-1m, 18//23 min (east) 5k-8m, 24//8-0, total 19 k-17m with petitioner nos. 1 and 2 vide registered lease dated 11.5.1978. It is pertinent to notice that land comprised in khasra no. 28//8/1/0-6, 3/0-13 is on perpetual lease with Ashok Kumar (petitioner) and land comprised in khasra no. 28//3/0-10 is on lease with Tirlok Kumar vide registered lease deed dated 7.2.1984. The petitioners in CWP No. 17333 of 2005 are owner in possession of land comprised in khasra No. 17//22/2 (4-12), 23(8-0), 24(8-0), 28//2/2(4-7), 3/1 (0-4), 3/2 (0-10), 3/3 (0-16), 3/4 (6-10), 4 Min (4-0), 8/1/1 (0-3) 8/1/2 (1-3) total 38 K 05 M. They have constructed buildings over their land after obtaining necessary sanction to their site plan from the Municipal Council, Kapurthala on 26.9.2002 and 11.2.2003. They have also placed on record receipt of building fee, malba development fee and boundary wall fee etc. Even the 'No Objection Certificate' issued by the District Town Planner, Kapurthala on 20.1.2003 has been placed on record in respect of land comprised in khasra no. 28//2/2 and 3/1 it has been asserted that one Kaushalya wd/o Ambika Dutt had leased for 99 years and the petitioner had entered into an agreement of sale on 26.12.1991, 15.7.1993 and 12.4.1994 with Smt. Kaushalya Devi and her sons. All the facts have been given apparently with the object of showing that had there been an opportunity to file objections under Section 5A of the Act then the petitioner could have highlighted a reasonable ground for exempting the land from acquisition. The respondent-State had earlier attempted to acquire the land vide notification dated 25.5.1995 and on the objection raised by the petitioners under Section 5 A of the Act alongwith other similarly situated persons the scheme was dropped. The respondent-State has issued the impugned notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act on 22.11.2004 (Annexure P.1) for the purpose of providing proper access to the existing Urban Estate and also for laying Kapurthala main out fall sewer of Urban Estate by invoking urgency provisions. A declaration has also been issued under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act on 6.12.2004 ( Annexure P.2). Thereafter award has been announced on 16.3.2007. It is alleged that the award has been announced beyond the statutory period of two years. According to the requirements of Section 11A of the Act the award could be announced only within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. In the absence of announcement of award within the stipulated period the entire proceedings for acquisition of land would lapse.

(3.) MR . Naresh Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners has made two submissions before us. Firstly, he has argued that the award has been announced after a lapse of period of two years and is vitiated because it flagrantly violates the provisions of Section 11 A of the Act. According to the learned counsel the entry of rapat roznamcha cannot extend the period of two years because these are self serving pieces of evidence and would not constitute a valid basis for validation of the award. The second argument of the learned counsel that no proof of urgency has been shown by the respondents to the effect that possession of the land has been taken. Learned counsel has maintained that notification under Section 4 read with section 17 of the Act was issued on 22.11.2004 and declaration was made under section 6 read with Section 17 (3-A) of the Act on 6.12.2004. No notice under Section 9 of the Act has however been issued for the purpose of taking possession in order to execute the work on the acquired land nor 80 percent of the compensation as envisaged by Section 17(3)(A) of the Act has been deposited. Therefore, the execution proceedings are liable to be set aside as the rights of the petitioners to file objections under Section 5 A of the Act which are akin to fundamental right of the land owners have been flagrantly violated.