JUDGMENT
N.K. Sodhi, J.
1. A large chunk of land including that of the petitioners in villages Nagal Moginand and Bana Madanpur in teshil and District Panchkula was acquired by the State of Haryana for a public purpose namely for the construction of building of Police Lines, Panchkula and staff quarters of police personnel posted in Police Lines. A preliminary notification dated August 13, 1997 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued and it was notified that any person interested who had any objection to the acquisition of the land in the locality could, within a period of 30 days of the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette or in the daily newspapers or from the date of publicity in the locality, whichever was later, file objections in writing before the Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula. Petitioners did not file their objections though several other land owners whose land was being acquired filed their objections in writing under Section 5A of the Act. Thereafter, the State Government issued the declaration under Section 6 of the Act acquiring 40 acres and 7 biswas of land in village Nagal Moginand and Anr. 52 acres and 16 marlas of land in village Bana Madanpur. The acquired land included the land of the petitioners as well. Feeling aggrieved by the acquisition, the petitioners filed a petition before the State Government under Section 15A of the Act which was heard by the Secretary to Government of Haryana, Home Department and the same was dismissed on 27.7.2000. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act has also been challenged in this petition.
2. In response to the notice of motion the respondents have filed their reply controverting the allegations made in the writ petition.
3. We have heard Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Sanjay Vashish, Deputy Advocate General on behalf of the State.
4. The first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the substance of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act had not been published in the locality and, therefore, the mandatory provisions of the Act having not been complied with, the notification and the acquisition proceedings are illegal. An affidavit of the Chowkidar of the village has been filed as Annexure P-5 with the writ petition and he has stated therein “that no Mushtari munadi was ever conducted in respect of the land of Shri R.N. Gupta, 1AS (also known as Robin Gupta) who is posted as Secretary-Commissioner,
Government of Punjab and was formerly resident of House No. 192 Sector 16-A, Chandigarh”. Affidavits of Gian Singh and Salochna Devi residents of village Madanpur’ and Moginand respectively have also been filed in support of the plea that there was no publication of the substance of the notification in the locality. Having heard Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, we are unable to accept this contention. In the reply filed by the Land Acquisition Collector-cum-SDO (Civil), Panchkula it is categorically averred that the preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the National Herald (English) on 19.8.1997 and in the Jansatta (Hindi) on 19.8.1997 and that substance of the notification was also published in the locality by beat of drum. According to the respondents the munadi was made by Ram Sarup chowkidar and an entry to this effect was made at serial No. 422 dated 26.8.1997 in the daily register. Learned Deputy Advocate General produced the original records before us at the time of hearing and we find that the averments made by the Land Acquisition Collector in his reply are supported by entries in the official record. According to the entry made in the daily diary register the Chowkidar had published the substance of the notification by beat of drum in the village. As regards the affidavit filed by him that he did not publish the substance of the notification or that he did not conduct the Mushtari munadi in the village cannot be accepted, in the face of the official record. It is interesting to note that in all the three affidavits filed as Annexure P-5 collectively with the writ petition the deponents have been identified by one Bhupinder P.A. to Secretary, Sports and Youth Services, Punjab which office petitioner No. I had held in the State Government. Petitioner No. 1 was a senior officer in the State of Punjab at the time when the land was acquired and had worked in the State of Haryana on deputation for three years and the possibility of the deponents trying to oblige him cannot be ruled out. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the first contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners.
5. The next argument of Shri Ashok Aggarwal, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners is that the area now acquired by the State Government falls within the restricted range of the terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory (TBRL) which is a work of defence, and, therefore, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act could not be issued prior to the permission granted by the Ministry of Defence. This argument is equally devoid of merit. Learned counsel could not point out any provision of law which requires that before acquiring the land under the Act or before issuing the declaration under Section 6 thereof prior permission from the Ministry of Defence, Government of India had to be obtained. It is common ground between the parties that the area falls within the restricted belt around TBRL area as notified by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence as per notification dated 11.6.1994. No copy of that notification has been placed on the record and we do not know what restrictions have been imposed under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903, we find that there is no requirement in the Act or in the Works of Defence Act that prior permission of the Ministry of defence was required before the land could be acquired. However, permission has been granted by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence for the setting up of Police Lines at Panchkula in villages Bana Madanpur and Nagal Moginand within the notified area of TBRL Range, Ramgarh. The learned Deputy Advocate General informed us that the construction of Police Lines over the land in dispute had not yet started and that the State Government was waiting for the decision of this case in view of the stay order granted by this Court. No illegality having been pointed out in this regard, we have no hesitation in rejecting this contention as well.
6. It was then contended that prior permission of the competent authority under the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Periphery Control Act) had also not been obtained before issuing the declaration wide Section 6 of the Act and, therefore, the same is invalid. In this regard reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sanjeet Singh Grewal and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors., (2001-1)127 P.L.R. 804. This argument is being noticed only to
be rejected. No doubt, the land in dispute falls within the controlled area as declared under Section 3 of the Periphery Control Act and Section 5 thereof provides that no person shall erect or re-erect any building or make or extend any excavation or lay out any means of access to a road in a controlled area except in accordance with the plans arid restrictions and with the previous permission of the Deputy Commissioner in writing but it will be seen that previous permission is required only for the purpose of erecting or re-erecting of any building or the like. No such permission is required for acquiring the land. Therefore, the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act cannot be questioned on this ground. As already noticed above, the construction of the Police Line has yet to start and that permission from the competent authority under Section 5 of the Periphery Control Act has been obtained for constructing the Police Lines at Panchkula in village Bana Madanpur and Nagal Moginand. This permission was granted on 23.12.1999, on the conditions mentioned in the letter addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Panchkula copy of which is Annexure R-1 with the written statement. It is not the case of the petitioners that the conditions mentioned therein have not been complied with. Sanjeet Kumar Grewal’s case (supra) is on different facts and does not lend any support to the case of the petitioners, the learned Judge did not hold therein that prior permission of the competent authority under Section 5 of the Periphery Control Act is necessary before any land could be acquired. There is thus, no merit in this submission of the learned counsel which too is rejected.
7. After the land in dispute had been acquired for Police Lines, it was ordered to be demarcated. The Patwari and the Kanungo of Panchkula under the orders of the Tehsildar prepared the demarcation report on 17.3.2001. Leaned counsel for the petitioners referred to this report to contend that the land in dispute is forest land and could not be acquired by the State Government without the prior permission of the Central Government under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. He relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Tirumulkkpad v. Union of India and Ors., (1997) 2 S.C.C. 267 and State of Kerala and Anr. v. Pullangode Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd., (1999)6 S.C.C. 99. A perusal of the demarcation report does not show that the land in dispute is forest land. As already observed, this report was prepared to demarcate the land which was acquired for the construction of Police Lines. In fact, the Patwari and the Kanungo were not even competent to say that it was the record to show that the land in dispute was ever declared as forest land. The arguments is, thus, without any basis and the same has to be rejected.
8. Before filing the preset writ petition, the petitioners had approached the State Government under Section 15A of the Act and filed a petition challenging the acquisition proceedings. That petition was disposed of by the Financial Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Haryana on 27.7.2000. It was urged before him that the petitioners had not been given opportunity of hearing by the Land Acquisition Collector and that the land being within one thousand yards of the notified area of TBRL Range, Ramgarh, could not be used for construction purposes. It was also contended that no proper munadi was made in the village as is required by Section 4 of the Act. The learned Financial Commissioner after perusing the record rejected all the contentions and upheld the acquisition. This order has also been challenged before us. Section 15A was introduced in the Act by Central Act Nd.68 of 1984. It gives powers to the State Government to call for the records of any proceedings and satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of any finding or order or as to the regularity of any proceedings taken for the acquisition of any land. This power of superintendence can be exercised by the State Government at any time but before the award is made under Section 11 of the Act. In exercise of this power the learned Financial/Commissioner examined the original record and found that the preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act had been properly published in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Act. He also found that the Military authorities had issued a no objection certificate on 25.4.2000 and, therefore,
the contention of the petitioners that no land could be acquired within a radius of one thousand yards of the notified area of TBRL Range had no merit. We have perused the’ impugned order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner and find no illegality or irregularity in it. The petitioners had not filed any objections before the Land Acquisition Collector on the publication of the preliminary notification though in the writ petition it as been stated that objections were filed and those were personally delivered to the Reader of the SDM, Panchkula who was acting as Land Acquisition Collector by the clerk of Sh. S.S. Salar, Advocate. This fact has been seriously disputed by the respondents and in view of the findings recorded by the learned Financial Commissioner, we are unable to hold that the petitioners filed their objections. Since no objections were filed the learned Deputy Advocate General was right in contending that the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings and the present writ petition deserved to be dismissed on that ground alone.
9. Before concluding we may mention that the petitioners have made some allegations of mala fide against Mrs. Kiran Aggarwal but these were not pressed before us at the time of arguments.
10. No other point was raised.
11. In the result there is no merit in the writ petition and the same stands dismissed with costs.
Sd/- Jasbir Singh, J.