Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
H.S.Bedi, J.
Prem Singh
Versus
Union Territory Through Its Administrator
Civil Writ Petition No. 12936 of 1991,
Decided On : JANUARY 20, 1992
LAND ACQUISITION - PUBLICATION OF NOTIFICATION - SECTIONS 4 AND 6 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - INTERPRETATION - PUBLIC PURPOSE - SECTION 3(F) OF THE ACT - SCHEME FOR UTILIZATION OF LAND - SECTION 192 OF THE PUNJAB MUNICIPAL ACT, 1971 - PREPARATION OF SCHEME AND ACQUISITION OF LAND - SIMULTANEOUS PROCESS - FUNDS FOR ACQUISITION - SECTION 52-L OF THE ACT - PUBLICATION OF NOTIFICATIONS IN THE LOCALITY - MINISTERIAL ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, owners of land in Manimajra, challenged the acquisition of their land by the Union Territory Administration under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They contended that the notifications were not published as per the mandatory provisions of the Act, the acquisition was not for a public purpose, a scheme for the utilization of the land was not prepared before acquisition, and the publication of notifications in the locality was done by the employees of the NAC Manimajra and not the Union Territory Administration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were duly published as per the mandatory provisions of the law. The acquisition of land for the development of a residential-cum-commercial complex scheme was a public purpose. There was no requirement of law that a scheme regarding the utilization of the land had to be prepared before the land was acquired for being utilized under the Municipal Act. Exemption had been made qua a small parcel of land after due deliberation. The publication of notifications in the locality was done by the employees of the NAC Manimajra, but this was a ministerial act and did not affect the validity of the acquisition.
Issues: 1. Whether the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were published as per the mandatory provisions of the law? 2. Whether the acquisition of land for the development of a residential-cum-commercial complex scheme was a public purpose? 3. Whether a scheme for the utilization of the land had to be prepared before the land was acquired for being utilized under the Municipal Act? 4. Whether the publication of notifications in the locality by the employees of the NAC Manimajra affected the validity of the acquisition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were published as per the mandatory provisions of the law. The Act itself makes a distinction between a declaration per se and the publication thereof, and the embargo placed is on the declaration which cannot be made after the expiry of one year, although there is no mandate against the publication thereof beyond that period. 2. The court held that the acquisition of land for the development of a residential-cum-commercial complex scheme was a public purpose. The purpose for which the land was acquired was clearly mentioned in the notifications and constituted sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. 3. The court held that there was no requirement of law that a scheme regarding the utilization of the land had to be prepared before the land was acquired for being utilized under the Municipal Act. The preparation of a scheme under the provisions of the Municipal Act and the acquisition of land for the purpose of implementing the scheme can go on simultaneously. 4. The court held that the publication of notifications in the locality by the employees of the NAC Manimajra was a ministerial act and did not affect the validity of the acquisition.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.
1. By the present judgment, I propose to dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 12936, 13958 and 14898 of 1991. The facts have been taken from C.W.P. No. 12936 of 1991.
2. The petitioners are owners of land, details whereof have been given in Annexure P-.1 to the petition, situated within the Notified Area Committee, (in short NAC) Manimajra, Union Territory Chandigarh. It has been averred that Manimajra was declared a notified area vide Notification dated 12th April, 1976, and certain Sections of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1971, (hereinafter called the Municipal Act) which include Sections 3, 53, 58 and 192 etc. were extended to this area with effect from 11th June, 1976. It has also been averred that by virtue of Sections 242 and 243 of the Municipal Act, a NAC is deemed to be a Municipal Committee and the area, thereof to be a Municipality. It has been averred in the writ petition that respondent No. 1 i e. the Union Territory Administration issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter called the Act) for acquisition of the land mentioned in Annexure P-]. The Notification was published in the Chandigarh Administration Gazette on 28th June, 1990 and a copy, thereof has been appended with the petition as Annexure P-2. Respondent No. 1 thereafter issued another Notification dated 24th June, 1991, purporting to be under Section 6 of the Act and the same was published in the Chandigarh Administration Gazette on 24th June, 1991, a copy having been appended as Annexure P-3 with the petition In para No. 7 of the petition it has been alleged that the Notifications aforesaid had not been published in the manner provided by the Act inasmuch as that in addition to the Notifications in the Gazette, they were required to be published in two daily news papers, out of which, one was required to be published in the regional language and also that public notice of the substance of the notifications was to be given at convenient places in the locality. The writ petition, further, goes on to say that the acquisition of land for the purposes of providing residential accommodation to citizens was not a public purpose as defined in Section 3(f) of the Act; that the NAC could not acquire this land before the sanction of the Scheme for the land was being acquired; that about 8 acres of land which had been proposed to be acquired under Section 4 of the Act was exempted at the time when the declaration under Section 6 thereof was made and this amounted to discrimination; and that the public notice of the substance of the notification in the locality had been given at the instance of the NAC and not the Union Territory Administration.
3. In reply to the petition the stand of the respondents is that the Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act had been duly published as provided by the mandatory provisions of the law. The acquisition of land for the development of residential-cum-Commercial Complex Scheme was a public purpose; that there was no requirement of law that before the land was acquired for being utilized under the Municipal Act, a Scheme regarding utilization of the land had to be prepared and that exemption had been made qua a small parcel of land that was proposed to be acquired after due deliberation.
4. At the time of initial argument, it appeared to me that the reply filed was rather vague and required to be supplemented. The case was adjourned to enable the respondents counsel Mr. Anand Swaroop, learned Senior Advocate, to produce the record. The record has been perused by me and I find on consideration of the written reply and also of the record that there is no merit in these writ petitions.
5. As already indicated, the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the Chandigarh Administration Gazette on 28th June, 1980, and as per the record produced, it was notified in the locality on 10th July, 1990, and published in the Punjabi and English Tribune on 15th Jul
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
