LT COL GURDIAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is one of the co-sharers of land in dispute which is situate in the revenue estate of Bhatinda. He has been serving as an officer of the Indian Army. His brother Dr. Kirpal Singh is working as an Assistant Professor of Ortheopeadic Surgery in Haward University, Washington. The petitioner and his brother purchased the disputed land so that the brother of the petitioner on return to his country could set up a hospital building thereupon.

(2.) On October 10, 1977, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 20,781/- as compensation under protest in respect of this land. According to him it was only on that date he came to know about the acquisition proceedings. He approached the Director of Industries and represented to him that the afore-mentioned land had been acquired without any notice to him. But the said Officer told him that since the award had been announced he was helpless in the matter. It is stated that only 50 Acres of and were needed for the alleged public purpose and the land belonging to him which was less than 9 Acres and which was also situate on one side of the whole block of land acquired, could be easily left out of the acquisition even now. An exception is also made to the legality of the acquisition proceedings on the ground that a personal notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was not served upon the petitioner. According to him one Gurdial Singh son of Kehar Singh, who had been intimated of these proceedings, had no authority to act on his behalf. The legality of the acquisition proceedings has been challenged inter alia on the grounds that the same could not be made without affording him an opportunity of being heard as also on the ground that want of personal notice to the land-owner as envisaged by Section 9 of the Act vitiates the entire proceedings.

(3.) In the return filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been admitted that no personal notice as envisaged by Section 9 of the Act was served upon the petitioner. At the same time it has been averred that the said notice had in fact been served upon Shri Gurdial Singh son of Kehar Singh, who was one of the co-sharers in respect of the land in dispute.