2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 2072
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Chauhan
CWP No. 9483 of 2009
Niranjan Singh
v.
State of Punjab & Ors.
{Decided on 21/06/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Prachi Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4, 6 r/w S.17--Acquisition of land–Public Purpose--Urgency--Whenever land is required for a public purpose which in opinion of appropriate government is of urgent importance then after publication of notice in accordance with provisions of Section 17(1) of Act and with previous sanction of State Government Collector may enter upon and take possession of said land although after 48 hours mandatory notice is required in specified cases as per proviso. (Para 19)
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4, 6 r/w S.17--Acquisition of land –Public Purpose--Urgency--There is no independent application of mind by respondent-State whether urgency is of such a nature that it would not bear even delay which might be required for filing and hearing of objections under Section 5 A of Act--Issuance of notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(2) and Section 6 of Act are liable to be quashed being without jurisdiction. (Para 23)
(C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4, 6 r/w S.17 and 5-A--Acquisition of land –Public Purpose--Urgency--Hearing of objections--First issue pertains to utility of existing village pond--Other issue is whether land is required for purpose of constructing another pond and whether same is suitable for aforesaid public purpose--All these questions could have been addressed by filing objections under Section 5A of Act and after hearing of those objections a report could have been sent to Government by Collector--Thereafter Government could have considered report of Collector and a final decision could have been taken--This position emerges from withdrawal of earlier notification issued on 16.11.2007--Delay is caused in finalizing present acquisition proceedings is attributable to State Government--Record shows that on account of additions and deletion of certain land some amendment in earlier notification dated 18.11.2007 was required to be published which could be done by initiating acquisition process afresh--Notifications dated 16.11.2007 and 25.1.2008 earlier issued for same purpose were withdrawn--Whole delay is imputable to respondent-State which impinges upon on invocation of urgency clause--Dispensing with Section 5 A of Act was not automatic and opportunity of filing objections and granting hearing to land owners should have been afforded--Had it been done then persons interested in land could have filed their objections which could eventually be decided by Government--Therefore, notification initiating process of acquisition of land under Section 4 read with Section 17(2) (c) and subsequent notification dated 12.6.2009 are not sustainable. (Para 24 & 25)
