1979 Supreme(SC) 144

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. SHINGHAL AND D.A. DESAI, JJ.
Babu Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2208 (N) of 1969, D/- 20-2-1979.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act – Sections 17, 5, 6 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 133 – Land Acquisition – Appeal by certificate under Article 133 (1) (a) arises from the dismissal in limine of Civil Writ Petition by a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court. – State of Punjab published the Notification Annexure A notifying that different pieces and parcels of land described in the notification were required for a public purpose namely; for the execution of Soil Conservation and other improvement works in the Catchment areas of Sukhna Lake Chandigarh and for raising a green belt around the Capital. – Simultaneously the notification recited that in view of the urgency in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 17 the requirement of the provision of Section 5-A shall be dispensed with. Immediately thereafter on the same day a declaration was made under Section 6 as per notification Annexure B that the pieces and parcels of land more particularly set out in the schedule to the notification were required for the public purpose namely; for carrying out Soil Conservation measures in Sukhna Lake Catchment Area in Kharar Tehsil, District Ambala. – After this declaration was made under Section 6 an award was made by the Collector. – Appellants and some other person whose lands were acquired made a representation to the Chandigarh Administration presumably requesting for allotment of alternative land and a reply was given as per Annexure D that their request for allotment of alternative sites was rejected. – Appellants filed their petition inter alia contending that the urgency clause was unlawfully applied and accordingly if the inquiry as contemplated in Section 5-A could not be dispensed with, it was illegal to simultaneously issue notification under Sections 4 and 6 on the same day and, therefore, the entire process of acquisition was vitiated. – Some other contentions were also raised to which a reference would be made while examining the contentions put forth on behalf of the appellants in this appeal. – Held, mere comparison of the statement of public purpose made in the respective notifications would by itself negative the contention raised on behalf of the appellants. – Statement of public purpose under Section 4 (1) notification is more comprehensive setting out details of improvement words while the one set out under Section 6 (1) notification is more precise and restricted in terms. – Broadly speaking the public purpose for which the land is acquired is for soil conservation measures in Sukhna Lake Catchment area. – A green belt is one such measure and its explicit statement does not change the public purpose. – What the law requires is a broad and understandable statement of public purpose and this is being insisted upon with a view to giving an opportunity to those whose lands are proposed to be acquired, to effectively object the proposed acquisition in an enquiry under Section 5-A. – If such be the object behind the provision requiring setting out of public purpose in the notification issued under Section 4 (1) as also one under Section 6 (1), it would appear that the statement of public purpose as set out in both the notifications is the same and there is no difference between the two. – If a person allowed the Government to complete the acquisition proceedings on the basis that the notification under S. 4 and declaration under S. 6 were valid and then attacked the notification on the grounds which were available to him at the time when the notification was published, it would be putting a premium on dilatory tactics. – Length of the delay is an important circumstance because of the nature of the acts done within the interval on the basis of the notification and declaration and therefore, a challenge to a notification under Section 4 and a declaration under Section 6 of the Act should be made within a reasonable time thereafter. – If it is not so done the petition is liable to be dismissed. – This appeal must fail for this additional reason because the challenge to two notifications was after a period of six years and after the whole process of acquisition was over and the State Government had spent a considerable amount in carrying out the public purpose. – Appeal Dismissed