IMPORTANT POINTS
Acquisition of additional land with a view to exploit it commercially for funding the main project cannot be a public purpose.
Notification u/s 4 not disclosing that part of land being acquired will be put to commercial use deprived the land owners of their only procedural safeguard/right u/s 5-A of the Act.

Headnote:(a) Administrative law – Town planning – It is for the authorities engaged in development and planning of a city, to ascertain the need of land acquisition for creating infrastructure, such as roads etc. – Record showing that re-alignment of the road was duly deliberated by authorities before taking decision – No arbitrariness found – It is not for court to decide the alignment of a road – Proposed road already shown in Zonal Plan – Master Link II being in public interest is not hit by section 76/77 of Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995. (Para 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
       (b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4 – Public purpose notified being construction of road – No indication of commercial use – Had it been notified land owners might have objected – Land owners deprived of their only procedural safeguard/right u/s 5-A of the Act – Drawing kept in the office for inspection showing the commercial proposal not relevant (Para 21, 25, 26)
       (2000) 1 SCC 533; (2002) 4 SCC 666; (2013) 4 SCC 210; (2013) 8 SCC 99 – Relied upon
       (2000) 7 SCC 296 – Referred
       (c) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4 – Use of land acquired for one public purpose for another public purpose – May be permissible where original purpose had to be changed for some valid reason – Instantly authorities having plan of commercial use of land from the beginning keeping land owners in dark – Not a change of purpose – Use for commercial use not a public purpose – Not permissible. (Para 27)
       (d) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4 – Additional land acquired for adjusting oustees from land acquired for Missing Link I As well as appellants – By and large there has been no objections to the acquisition and oustees have accepted compensation – Only a handful of oustees challenging acquisition for housing the oustee – Question not gone into – Directions given – Liberty given to appellants to make representation to authorities. (Para 33, 34)
       (1992) 2 SCC 168 – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       A bypass is being constructed to connect Ferozepur Road to Sidhwan Canal for decongesting Ludhiana City of the traffic problems. Major portion of the road had already been constructed, which were shown in the site plan filed in the High Court as Annexure R/1/7. From point A to point D and again from point E to point F, these portions had already been constructed.
       However, there were two Missing Links namely between point D to point E (Missing Link-I) and point F to point G (Missing Link-II).
       A notification was issued dated 12.05.2003 under Section 4 read with Section 17(4), followed by the notification dated 13.05.2003 under Section 6, to acquire land measuring 11 acres 3 kanal 9 marlas for construction of Missing Link- I. Pursuant thereto, the land was acquired vide Award No.1 dated 24.08.2005. This acquisition was challenged but the said challenge failed as writ petitions were dismissed and decision of the High Court was upheld by Supreme Court as well.
       For providing road from point F to point G (Missing Link-II), the impugned notification dated 10.08.2009 was issued for the aforesaid public purpose. Award No.4 dated 07.08.2010 was passed.
       Simultaneously, second set of notifications were issued for acquisition of land for development of residential urban estate to adjust oustees of the above said road.
       Challenge to these two acquisitions has been dismissed by the High Court.
       Finding of the Court:
       Acquisition of additional land along Missing Link II for commercial development is not justified.
       Result: Appeals allowed partly.

JUDGMENT

A.K. SIKRI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the common judgment dated April 29, 2011 passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby number of writ petitions which were filed challenging the acquisition of land measuring 192.75 acres vide two notifications, both dated 10.08.2009, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') were dismissed. As a consequence, validity of the notifications has been upheld, holding that acquisition for public purpose for development of Missing Link-II from Dhandra Road to Sidhwan Canal via Malerkotla Road, Ludhiana as well as for development of residential urban estate along proposed road from Dhandra Road to Sidhwan Canal via Malerkotla Road, Ludhiana, is just and proper.

3. It is clear from the above that two notifications were issued on the same day i.e. on 10.08.2009. Vide first notification, land was acquired for development of Missing Link-II on the route mentioned above. By the second notification, land was sought to be acquired for the development of residential urban estate along with the proposed road, mainly to adjust oustees of the above said road. Land acquired by the first notification was 192.75 acres whereas by the second notification, land measuring 59 acres 1 kanal 12 marlas was acquired. After the aforesaid notifications under Section 4 of the Act, two notifications both dated 10.08.2009 under Section 6 of the Act were issued and consequent thereupon, Award No.4 dated 07.08.2010 pertaining to the first notification and Award No.3 dated 07.08.2010 pertaining to the second notification were passed. Validity of all these notifications was the subject matter of the writ petitions.

4. In order to appreciate the present dispute in its correct perspective, it is necessary to consider some important background facts pertaining to construction of what has been termed as 'Missing Link-I' - which is inextricably linked to the present acquisition. It is a matter of record that a bypass is being constructed to connect Ferozepur Road to Sidhwan Canal aiming at decongesting Ludhiana City of the traffic problems. Major portion of the road had already been constructed, which were shown in the site plan filed in the High Court as Annexure R/1/7. From point A to point D and again from point E to point F, these portions had already been constructed.

However, there were two Missing Links namely between point D to point E and point F to point G. Missing Link from point D to E has been shown as 'Missing Link-I'. The respondent-State had issued the notification dated 12.05.2003 under Section 4 read with Section 17(4), followed by the notification dated 13.05.2003 under Section 6, to acquire land measuring 11 acres 3 kanal 9 marlas for construction of Missing Link- I. Pursuant thereto, the land was acquired vide Award No.1 dated 24.08.2005. This acquisition was challenged but the said challenge failed as writ petitions were dismissed and decision of the High Court was upheld by this Court as well.

5. It is in this scenario, for providing road from point F to point G (Missing Link-II), the impugned notification dated 10.08.2009 was issued for the aforesaid public purpose. As per the Government, the bypass had been planned and realignment done keeping in view the availability of the land so that it may not affect the existing buildings and in order to solve the increasing traffic problems in future so as to ensure free and smooth flow of the traffic. The realignment was approved by the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in its meeting dated 06.08.2009. That led to the passing of Award No.4 dated 07.08.2010.

6. Simultaneously, second set of notifications were issued for acquisition of land for development of residential urban estate to adjust oustees of the above said road. According to the Government, with the acquisition of the land to complete Missing Link

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 259

Cases Referred (6)