Supreme Court of India
G.S. SINGHVI & V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
Gurbinder Kaur Brar & Others
Versus
Union of India & Others
Civil Appeal No. 5885 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 27221 of 2011) with Civil Appeal No. 5884 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 25387 of 2011)
Decided On : 22-07-2013
(2013) 1 SCC 403 - Relied upon
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 5A(1) and (2) - Objections under Section 5(1) rejected mechanically without considering large number of substantial objections - Report under section 5A(2) on such hearing vitiated for non-application of mind. (Para 9)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 6(1) - Illegality in notification under section 4(1) - Illegality rectified and notification under section 6(1) issued after 11 years - Not permissible. (Para 10)
(2002) 3 SCC 533 - Relied upon
Civil Appeal No. 1964/2013 - Referred
Facts of the case:
Theses appeals challenge the acquisition of land.
Finding of the Court:
The proceedings are vitiated for procedural irregularity and lack of competency.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Judgment :-
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against order dated 18.3.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants for quashing the acquisition of their land were dismissed along with a batch of other petitions.
3. At the outset, we may mention that the impugned order was set aside by this Court in Surinder Singh Brar and others v. Union of India and others (2013) 1 SCC 403 and Notifications dated 26.6.2006, 2.8.2006 and 28.2.2007 issued by the Chandigarh Administration under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the 1894 Act’) for the acquisition of land for Phase-III of Chandigarh Technology Park were quashed.
4. By Notification dated 1.10.2002 issued under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act, the Chandigarh Administration proposed the acquisition of 71.96 acres land for various purposes including the Chandigarh Technology Park. The appellants filed detailed objections under Section 5A(1) because their land were also included in Notification dated 1.10.2002. After making a show of hearing the objectors, the Land Acquisition Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh submitted report with the recommendation that the land notified on 1.10.2002 may be acquired. The report of the Land Acquisition Officer was accepted by the officers of the Chandigarh Administration and declaration dated 29.9.2003 was issued under Section 6(1) of the 1894 Act for 56.76 acres land.
5. The appellants challenged the acquisition of their land in Civil Writ Petition No.8545/2004 titled Gurbinder Kaur Brar and another v. Union of India and others and Civil Writ Petition No.12779/2004 titled Milkha Singh v. Union of India and others.
6. Similar petitions were filed by other landowners whose land had been acquired for Phases-II and III of Chandigarh Technology Park. All the writ petitions were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned order.
7. In Surinder Singh Brar and others v. Union of India and others (supra), this Court reversed the order of the High Court and quashed the acquisition of land for Phase-III of Chandigarh Technology Park and various other purposes specified in Notifications dated 26.6.2006, 2.8.2006 and 28.2.2007. While dealing with the question whether the officers of the Union Territory of Chandigarh other than the Administrator could issue notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the 1894 Act, this Court referred to Article 239 of the Constitution (unamended and amended), Notifications dated 8.10.1968, 1.1.1970 and 14.8.1989 issued under Clause (1) of that Article, Notification dated 25.2.1988 issued by the Administrator, Union Territory of Chandigarh under Section 3(1) of the Chandigarh (Delegation of Powers) Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the 1987 Act’) and observed:
“The unamended Article 239 envisaged administration of the States specified in Part C of the First Schedule of the Constitution by the President through a Chief Commissioner or a Lieutenant Governor to be appointed by him or through the Government of a neighbouring State. This was subject to other provisions of Part VIII of the Constitution. As against this, amended Article 239 lays down that subject to any law enacted by Parliament every Union Territory shall be administered by the President acting through an Administrator appointed by him with such designation as he may specify. In terms of clause (2) of Article 239 (amended), the President can appoint the Governor of a State as an Administrator of an adjoining Union territory and on his appointment, the Governor is required to exercise his function as an Administrator independently of his Council of Ministers. The difference in the language of the unamended and amended Article 239 makes it clear that prior to 1-11-1956, the President could administer Part C State through a Chief Commissioner or a Lieutenant Governor, but, after the amendment, every Union Territory is required
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.