CWP No.8889 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 8889 of 2009
Date of decision: 16.7.2009
Sohan Singh and others
..Petitioners
vs.
State of Punjab and others.
..Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.D.ANAND
---
Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners.
--
J.S.KHEHAR,J. (Oral)
The pleadings of the instant writ petition reveal that a
notification was issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on 4.9.1998, proposing to acquire 82
kanals and 13 marlas of land, for the expansion of the New Mandi
Township at Raikot. Dissatisfied with the proposed acquisition the
petitioners are stated to have filed objections under section 5-A of the Act,
whereupon, the respondents did not take any further action, inasmuch as, no
notification was issued by the respondents under section 6 of the Act.
Resultantly, the land of the petitioners was not finally acquired consequent
upon the issuance of the notification dated 4.9.1998, referred to
hereinabove.
The pleadings in the instant writ petition also reveal that for the
same purpose, namely, for expansion of the New Mandi Township at
Raikot, the respondents issued yet another notification under section 4 of
CWP No.8889 of 2009 2
the Act dated 20.2.2006, seeking to acquire 62 kanals and 13 marlas of
land. Once again all the petitioners, hereinabove, are stated to have filed
objections under section 5-A of the Act. Having not acceded to the
objections raised by the petitiones, the respondents issued a notification
under section 6 of the Act on 12.3.2007. As such, the land of the petitioners
which was a part of 62 kanals and 13 marlas of land came to be acquired.
Consequent upon the acquisition of land of the petitioners in
furtherance of the notifications dated 20.2.2006 and 12.3.2007, the Land
Acquisition Collector, Colonization Department, Punjab, announced his
award on 27.11.2008.
Through the instant writ petition the petitioners are seeking to
assail the action of the respondents in acquiring their land through the
notification dated 12.3.2007 (Annexure P26). Two submissions have been
advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioners Firstly, that
the same land owned by the petitioners was sought to be acquired by the
respondents in 1998, however, on account of the objections raised by the
petitioners the proposed acquisition was dropped. It is submitted, that for
the same reasons, as had weighed with the respondents at the earlier
juncture, the land of the petitioners should not be acquired. Secondly, it is
the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that on account of
the development in the area, which is demonstrated by placing on the record
of this case the existence of the names of the petitioners in the voters list, as
also particulars of payments of electricity and water charges, as also house
tax, the land of the petitioners where they have established dwelling units
should be excluded.
CWP No.8889 of 2009 3
Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the view that
the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed merely on account of delay
and laches, inasmuch as, the determination to acquire the petitioners’ land
was expressed at the time of the issuance of the notification dated 12.3.2007
under section 6 of the Act whereas the instant petition came to be filed on
28.5.2009. In fact the instant writ petition was filed even after the award
was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 27.11.2008. Be that as
it may, we find no merit even in the two submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioners. Merely because at an earlier juncture the
respondents had not continued the process of acquisition after having
issued notification under section 4 of the Act, is not sufficient to conclude,
that the acquisition proceedings should be dropped now as well, on the
objections filed under section 5-A of the Act, as there is no material on the
record of this case to demonstrate the real reasons for dropping acquisition
proceedings initiated as a consequence of the notifications issued under
sections 4 and 6 of the Act.
In so far as the construction made by the petitioners and others
over the land which has now been acquired (as a consequence of the
issuance of the notification under section 6 of the Act dated 12.3.2007) is
concerned, we are satisfied that it is open to the State to acquire even built
up area for a greater public interest/purpose. We are satisfied that the
expansion of the New Mandi Township at Raikot, is a purpose for which
even built up area in the vicinity of the existing Mandi Township could
have been acquired, keeping in mind the fact that area adjoining the existing
mandi also has to be acquired.
CWP No.8889 of 2009 4
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in this
petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed.
( J.S.Khehar)
Judge
(S.D.Anand)
Judge
July 16, 2009
rk