IMPORTANT POINT
Neither Article 300-A nor the Land Acquisition Act make any measures for rehabilitation of the expropriated owners a condition precedent for compulsory acquisition of land.

Headnote:(a) Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 – Section 178(2) – Exemption notification not challenged in writ petition – Questioning the same without laying any foundation or pleading not permissible. (Para 19)
        (b) Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 – Section 178(2) – Government taking a considered decision on relevant and germane grounds – No infirmity. (Para 25)
        (c) Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 – Section 178(2) – Expedient – Need to keep in view the context and the object of the provisions in widest amplitude – Provision intends to enable the Government to deal with situations in which circumstances independent of the question of hardship render it expedient to do so by granting exemption. (Paras 29 to 31)
        (1975) 1 SCC 138; (2000) 5 SCC 82 – Relied upon
        (d) Judicial Review – No factual foundation laid or challenge made before the High Court – It is not open to argue before the Supreme Court that the notification suffered from any illegality. (Para 37)
        (e) Constitution of India – Article 300-A and 21 – Neither Article 300-A nor the Land Acquisition Act make any measures for rehabilitation of the expropriated owners a condition precedent for compulsory acquisition of land – Rehabilitation of the property owners is not a part of the right to life under Article 21 – Want of any such measures cannot render any compulsory acquisition for public purpose bad. (Para 39)
        (1996) 1 SCC 731; (1996) 2 SCC 549 – Relied upon
        Bondu Ramaswamy – Distinguished
        (f) Land Pooling Scheme – The scheme is prospective – The scheme cannot be introduced after the acquisition and even allotment process is over. (Para 43)
       Facts of the case:
        1. Constitutional validity of Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 was assailed before the High Court.
        2. Besides, the notification issued under section 4 of the Act 1894 was also assailed.
        3. The High Court negatived all contentions.
       Finding of the Court:
        The exemption notification does not suffer from any infirmity.
       Result : Appeals dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

Subject Matter: The case concerns Land Acquisition and specifically the Exemption from the Town Planning Act under the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995. [judgement_subject]
Relevant Legislation: The judgment refers to the Constitution of India (Articles 300-A and 21) and the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (Section 178(2)). [judgement_act_referred]
Validity of Exemption Notification: The exemption notification issued by the Government under Section 178(2) does not suffer from any infirmity, as the Government took a considered decision on relevant and germane grounds to prevent haphazard development and undue hardship to allottees. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Judicial Review Limitations: It is not permissible to challenge the exemption notification before the Supreme Court if no factual foundation was laid or the challenge was not made before the High Court. (!) (!) (!)
Power of Exemption: Section 178(2) empowers the Government to exempt areas if the operation of the Act causes undue hardship or if circumstances render it expedient to do so. This power should be construed liberally to allow bona fide decisions. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Rehabilitation Measures: Neither Article 300-A of the Constitution nor the Land Acquisition Act makes rehabilitation of expropriated owners a condition precedent for compulsory acquisition of land. (!) (!)
Land Pooling Scheme: The Land Pooling Scheme formulated by the State is prospective in nature and cannot be introduced after the acquisition and allotment process are over; thus, it cannot be applied retrospectively to the appellants. (!) (!)
Outcome: The appeals were dismissed as the acquisition proceedings were valid, but the Court directed that if the appellants apply for a reference to the Civil Court for higher compensation within six weeks, the Collector shall make such a reference. (!)

JUDGMENT

T.S. Thakur, J. —

Leave granted.

2. These two appeals by special leave raise common questions of law and shall stand disposed of by this common judgment. The appeals arise out of two separate orders both dated 26.9.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby C.W.Ps. Nos.9060 of 2005 and 9083 of 2005 filed by the appellants have been dismissed. The petitioners had in those petitions challenged the validity of a Notification dated 23.1.2004 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and a declaration dated 18.1.2005 issued under Section 6 thereof. Constitutional validity of Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 was also assailed by them on several grounds which failed to find favour with the High Court who upheld not only the constitutional validity of the impugned enactments but also the notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act. The present appeals assail the correctness of the view taken by the High Court.

3. The facts giving rise to the controversy have been set out at length by the High Court in the lead judgment under challenge delivered in C.W.P. No. 9060 of 2005. The same need not, therefore, be set out again except to the extent it is absolutely necessary to do so. Suffice it to say that the writ petitioners-appellants before us are expropriated owners of different parcels of land situate in Village Chilla, Tehsil Mohali, District Ropar, in the State of Punjab an upcoming township situate on the outskirts of the city of Chandigarh, which has over the years seen rapid growth as a residential and urban estate. In the first phase of the expansion of the township sectors 53 to 75 were taken up for development under the provisions of Punjab Urban Estate (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 and Punjab Housing Development Board Act, 1972; and the land needed for these sectors acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

4. In due course the Government started the process of acquisition of land for sectors 76 to 80 also with a view to extending further the urban estate of Mohali. A large extent of 1274 acres of land was notified for acquisition in this phase of extension and development. The respondents assert that while a majority of the land owners did not find fault with the proceedings, some of the owners representing around 10% of the total area notified for acquisition, questioned the same, in writ petitions filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. One of the grounds urged in the said petitions was that unless and until a master plan, a regional plan or a town planning scheme was finalized under the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 no acquisition of land could be undertaken by the Government or its agencies. Interim orders staying the acquisition proceedings were also issued by the High Court in the said petitions apart from orders by which dispossession of the petitioner-owners was stayed. These orders created serious hurdles for the implementation of the 2nd phase of the development and extension of Mohali township. The government was of the view that legal impediments in the acquisition of a small percentage of the total area could not be allowed to adversely affect the entire plan which was meant to meet the urgent housing requirements of the people of Punjab. The Government therefore invoked its powers under Section 178(2) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 and exempted the areas falling under sectors 76 to 80 from the provisions of Section 14 and those contained in Chapters VIII, IX and XII of the said Act.

5. The exemption notification referred to above was challenged by the aggrieved owners in CWP No.29 of 2004 Jasmer Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 26th September, 2007. The High Court held that the exercise of powers vested with the Government under Section 178(2) of the Act was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 926

IMPORTANT POINT Neither Article 300-A nor the Land Acquisition Act make any measures for rehabilitation of the expropriated owners a condition precedent for compulsory acquisition of land.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
Neither Article 300-A nor the Land Acquisition Act make any measures for rehabilitation of the expropriated owners a condition precedent for compulsory acquisition of land.