BHUSHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall also dispose of the connected Civil Writ Petition Nos. 10879 of 2008, 11777 of 2008 and 12469 of 2008 as all these writ petitions impugn the notifications: (i) annexure P-2 dated 30.1.2008 (published in newspapers on 15.2.2008) and (ii) annexure P-6 dated 22.5.2008 (published in newspapers on 24.5.2008), issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and (iii) annexure P-8 dated 6.6.2008 (published in newspapers on 8.6.2008), issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'). However, the brief facts of each writ petition are given separately hereinafter.

(2.) IN CWP No. 11612 of 2008, petitioners claim to own a land measuring 4.69 acres in village Patti Jhuti, Bathinda, comprising in Khasra Nos.4572 min, 4573 min and 4574 min. According to petitioners, this chunk of land has great potential for being used for residential and commercial purposes, both. The land in question is located on Multanian Road, and it appears from the averments in writ petition that the petitioners decided to set up a Resort (marriage palace) to be known as 'Skyland Resorts'. Accordingly, they applied to Government departments concerned for grant of no objection certificates for setting up the Resort, in 2006. On 23.6.2006, District Town Planner, Bathinda gave a report to the Senior Town Planner, Patiala, regarding the suitability of petitioners' land for setting up the proposed Resort. The District Town Planner, Bathinda, after inspecting the site, reported that his office was agreeable to the proposal as such. This was also pointed out by the District Town Planner that the land in question did not fall within any town planning scheme. However, it was noticed that some electricity wires were going over the land and, thus, the petitioners were required to deposit shifting charges with P.S.E.B., which according to them, they have since already done and thereafter, the electricity wires have also been shifted. On 29.9.2006, Punjab Pollution Board also granted no objection certificate for setting up the Resort, which was followed by grant of no objection by Punjab Urban Development Authority, (PUDA), on 26.10.2006, and the petitioners, thus, started raising constructions on the said land. On 30.01.2008, State of Punjab issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act, seeking to acquire a total area of 80 acres, 60 kanals, 10 marlas land in village Patti Jhuti and 9 acres, 5 kanals, 1 marla in village Behman Diwana for the public purpose like "construction of Ring Road, Phase-II, development of junctions and roadsite amenities, connecting Malout Road to Badal Road, Tehsil Bathinda and District Bathinda". The State Government also invoked the urgency provisions under Section 17(1) of the Act, and directed that the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply in respect of this acquisition. A portion of petitioners' land as aforesaid, measuring 21 kanals and 6 marlas was found included in that notification. Besides, that part of the land which touches Multanian road and is proposed to be used towards main entry to the Resort, was also included in the notification (annexure P-2). As a result, now there is no access to the proposed Resort from the side of Multanian road. On 15.2.2008, after two weeks, the aforesaid notification issued under Section 4 of the Act (annexure P-2) was published in the newspapers 'Indian Express' and 'Ajit'. On 3.3.2008, only after over a month of issuance of the notification, an entry was made in the Rapat Roznamcha of village Patti Jhuti to show the carrying out of publication of the substance of notification in the locality. Thus, from the date of issuance of Section 4 notification, a period of 1 month and 15 days was lost in effecting publication and making entry in Rapat Roznamcha. It is also alleged that on 11.4.2008, the petitioners met the Minister incharge of Department of Public Works and submitted a representation (annexure P-3) against the acquisition of a portion of their land being used for the construction of a marriage palace as also the piece of land to be used for providing a passage from Multanian Road to the marriage palace. Their representation was marked to the officers of department for examination and providing necessary assistance to competent authority. On 23.4.2008,the SDM, Bathinda, submitted his report (annexure P4) to the Deputy Commissioner, mentioning that the petitioners had started the construction on the land under acquisition only after obtaining no objection certificates from PUDA, District Town Planner and Pollution Control Board etc. It was also pointed out that due to acquisition of about 40% of the land in question, the petitioners are left with almost no land to provide an access to the Resort. This was also pointed out that the land under acquisition, fell within a junction and, in order to give the access to Resort from Multanian road, some part of the junction would need to be left out. On 16.5.2008, SDM concerned (respondent No. 2) vide his letter (annexure P-5) wrote to the Executive Engineer (B&R) Bathinda, informing him that the land of petitioners does not fall in the Ring Road, however, it comes within a pocket planned next to the Ring Road. This was also pointed out that as a result of acquisition, the petitioners would be left with no access to the remaining part of their land housing the Resort/marriage palace. This was clarified by respondent No. 2 that for any further action in this regard, the acquiring department would alone be the proper authority to issue a corrigendum for releasing the said piece of land as has been done in respect of release of other lands like the one situated in village Bhagwangarh on Sangat Kotshamir Road. Thereafter, on 22.5.2008, State Government of Punjab issued another notification (annexure P-6) under Section 4 read with Section 17 (1) of the Act seeking to acquire 81 acres, 2 kanals, 15 marlas of land in village Patti Jhuti and 9 acres, 5 kanals and 1 marla land in village Behman Diwana, for the same public purpose, namely: "construction of Ring Road Phase-II, development of junctions and road site amenities". That notification again included the land of petitioners measuring 23 kanals 4 marlas. According to writ petitioners, the notification (annexure P-6) covered the same area which was notified in the earlier notification (annexure P-2). Now, the difference between the two notifications is said to be that the areas of some khasra numbers being acquired under later notification (annexure P-6), have been increased while that of other khasra numbers have been decreased. Moreover, some khasra numbers, which were included in the earlier notification (annexure P-2), have been excluded from the later notification (annexure P-6). This is also mentioned that the area of 21 kanals and 6 marlas of land belonging to the petitioners, which was acquired vide the earlier notification (annexure P-2), has been increased to 23 kanals and 4 marlas in the later notification (annexure P-6). Besides, the portion of land which alone could provide the passage from Multanian road to the Resort was again included in the later notification (annexure P-6), like the earlier one. Now, after a gap of 13 days, State Government of Punjab issued the notification under Section 6 of the Act, which was published two days thereafter on 8.6.2008, in the English Daily "Tribune" vide annexure P-8. Moreover, the public purpose mentioned in the later notification (annexure P-6) was changed to read only as "for Ring Road Phase-II, Bathinda". Thus, the items like construction of junction and Road Site amenities, do not find mention in the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Executive Engineer concerned vide his letter (annexure P9), also wrote to the SDM (respondent No. 2) that the passage to the Resort of the petitioners falls in a pocket under the notifications and thus, they would be left with no approach passage from Multanian road to the Resort. He also clarified that there would be no obstruction in the construction of Ring Road if the land meant for use as the passage to the Resort was released. The Executive Engineer, thus, recommended the release of land to be utilized for the passage. The SDM (respondent No. 2) then wrote to Additional Secretary, Department of Public Works (B&R), Chandigarh, vide annexure P-10, that the petitioners had started construction of the Resort after obtaining NOCs from the departments and thus, with the acquisition of their land, they would be left with no passage to the Resort. Like the report of Executive Engineer, the SDM also pointed out that with the release of land to be used as passage, except the area marked as ABCD in a plan, there would be no obstruction to the construction of Ring Road. Respondent No. 2 also pointed out that it would rather be in the public interest to release the land for passage to the petitioners. However, vide annexure P-11, a notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioners submitted that respondents herein did not carry out proper publication of the substance of notification (Annexure P-3) in the locality as required under mandatory provisions of the Act. Moreover, an entry to show carrying out of publication of the substance of notification (Annexure P-3) in the locality in the Rapat Roznamcha of village Patti Jhuti was made after a month of the issuance of the notification. Thus, the entry was only a paper formality. As per notification, the acquisition intends to lay an eight kms road known as the Ring Road Phase-II stretching from Malout Road to Badal Road. The respondents have also projected the development of 6 junctions/pockets with some commercial buildings. Though this writ petition was filed by 30 petitioners, but vide our order dated 24.9.2008, in C.M. No. 18823 of 2008 (application under Section 151 CPC, for dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn qua petitioner nos.5,6, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28 and 30), the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn in respect of the said petitioners.