MAHESH CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners assailing the notification issued u/s.4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1984 dated 23.02.2006 issued by the Government for acquisition of their land situated in Village Samleti, Tehsil Mahua, District Dausa for construction of new yard for the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and further notification issued by the Government u/s.6 read with 17(1) of the said Act on 7.9.2006.

(2.) Shri Anil Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that subsequent to issuance of notification u/s.4, petitioners submitted their objections to the Land Acquisition Officer. The Government on 15.10.2006, published a notification u/s.6 read with Section 17A dated 7.9.2006 to the effect that it was satisfied that the land in dispute was needed for public purpose namely for construction of the new yard for Krishi Upaj Mandi, Mahua, Mandawar. It was also stipulated in that notification that the land shall be taken possession of after expiry of 15 days from the date of notice issued u/s.9(1) of the Act. The land acquisition proceedings were being held against the petitioners in absolutely illegal and arbitrary manner. Section 4 notification also does not show that the land was indeed needed for any public purpose. The fact that objections were called u/s.5A of the Act indicates that there was no genuine urgency for the acquisition. Section 17(1) and 17(4) provides for exclusion of the proceedings u/s.5A in case of urgency. The enquiry was held in mechanical manner and the Land Acquisition Officer did not apply its mind to the objections submitted by the petitioners and yet sent his recommendations to the Government for acquisition of land. No intimation was given by Land Acquisition Officer to the petitioners about the sending of the report of recommendation. Petitioners were provided the copy of the report only when notification u/s.6 was issued. Nothing specifically was evident from the report as to formation of report about urgency. There was no material before the Government to invoke the urgency clauses, which even otherwise could not be invoked. The notification u/s.17 also does not disclose any reason why the land was needed urgently. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Sudhir Chaudhary vs. Union of India, 1995 AIR(Del) 391 and argued that it was held in that judgment that notification u/s.17(1) should clearly indicate the reasons of urgency for acquisition. Reasons expressed in the file of the department have of no relevance because government orders publically issued, cannot be allowed to be amended, added or clarified subsequently. It was not open to the Government to supply reasons of urgency in an acquisition proceeding before the Court. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be allowed.

(3.) Per contra, Shri Inderjeet Singh, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that public purpose was very much in existence because existing yard of Krishi Upaj Mandi was rendered insufficient to cater to the needs of the farmers. Land was urgently needed for extension of the existing yard and for establishment of sub-yard. Objections submitted by the petitioners were duly considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and his report was obtained. But then, at that stage, the Government was of a view that the land is needed urgently for construction of sub yard of the mandi. Because of increase in the irrigation facilities, modern techniques, quantum of agriculture produce that were being received in the yard were increasing day by day. Learned counsel in this connection referred to the additional affidavit filed in writ petition no.8558/06, Geela Ram vs. State & Ors. and argued that the quantity of agriculture produce received in the mandi yard has undergone tremendous increase from the year 2001-02 to 2003-04, which is why the present mandi yard was falling short of the requirement and extension was urgently needed. Learned counsel submitted that not only the 80% compensation has been offered to be paid to the petitioners before passing of award but also subsequently award was passed on 21.8.07, copy of which has been placed on recorded as Annexure-R/4/3 in the writ petition of Geela Ram, supra. With respect to the lands of the petitioners, such award could not be passed because the status quo order is obtaining in this matter. If the petitioners have not received the compensation, they shall be now paid the same. The urgency clause is subjective satisfaction of the Government. Learned counsel for respondents in support of the arguments cited the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Krishan Lal Arneja & Ors., 2004 8 SCC 453, First Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. vs. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli & Anr., 2002 4 SCC 160 and Essco Fabs Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 2009 AIR(SC) 1552.