Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surat Singh Engineer And Anr. vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 1 July, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1996)114PLR142
JUDGMENT N.K. Sodhi, J.
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the acquisition proceedings whereby the land of the petitioners has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the act). The primary ground of challenge is that the State Government disposed of the objections filed by the petitioners without affording any opportunity of hearing to them.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition may first be noticed.
3. The State Government by a notification published in the Punjabi Tribune and Daily Ajit on 31.5.1991 under Section 4 of the Act declared that land specified therein was needed for a public purpose namely for setting up of Industrial Focal Point at Ludhiana in village Dhandari Kalan, Mundian Khurd, Bholpur and Wangli Nichi Tehsil and District Ludhiana and that the same was likely to be acquired for the said purpose. Persons interested were called upon to file their objections under Section 5-A of the Act before the Collector within one month from the publication of the notification. The petitioners who own 4 kanals of land each in village Mundian Khurd filed their objections within the prescribed period. It is alleged that they did not receive any notice from the Collector after the filing of the objections nor were they afforded any opportunity of hearing at the time when their objections were disposed of by the State Government and that the latter acquired the land by issuing a notification on 18.3.1992 under Section 6 of the Act whereby a total of 796.51 acres of land was acquired including the land of the petitioners in village Mundian Khurd. Both the notifications issued under Section 4 and Section 6 have been impugned in this petition.
4. In the written statement filed by Shri I.S. Bindra, Secretary, Industries, Punjab, Chandigarh it is pleaded that petitioner 2 is not the owner of the land in question and filing of objections by him was a meaningless exercise. It is further submitted that substance of the notification under Section 4 was given wide publicity in the village on 19.6.1991 by beat of drum and an entry to this effect was made in the daily diary register at serial number 417. A copy of the substances of the notification is also said to have been pasted on outer wall of the Patwar Khana. It is further pleaded in the written statement that even though petitioner 1 owns the land as claimed by him, he did not file any objections under Section 5-A of the Act in spite of the publication of the notification and its substance in the village. The respondents have prayed the writ petition be dismissed because petitioner 1 did not file any objections and petitioner 2 is not the owner of any land. The petitioners filed a replication controverting the averments made by the respondents in their written statements. It was reiterated that the full name of petitioner 2 is Kirpal Singh son of Narinder Singh and that he owns 4 Kanals of land in village Mundian Khurd. A copy of the jamabandi wherein petitioner 2 is shown to be owning the land was attached as Annexure P5 along with the replication. The other averment to the effect that petitioner 1 did not file any objection was also denied and it is stated that the respondents have made a false plea in this Court. It is pleaded in the replication that the objections were sent by registered post, and the true copies of the postal receipt and also the acknowledgment receipt received by the petitioner have been appended as Annexure P6 and P7 with the replication. It is also pleaded by the petitioners that since petitioner 1 filed his objections and petitioner 2 is the owner of the land as per the revenue record, their objections have not been considered and, therefore, the entire acquisition proceeding are null and void. Thereafter Shri Ashok Kumar Sikka, PCS, Collector, Land Acquisition, Industries Department, Punjab filed an additional affidavit with the permission of the Court in which it was again reiterated on behalf of the respondents that petitioner 2 is not the owner of the land as alleged by him in the replication. It was further stated that copy of the jamabandi for the year 1986-87 which was attached as Annexure P5 with the replication was not a correct document and that in fact the correct copy of the jamabandi was as appended with this additional affidavit as Annexure R-1. It was, however, admitted that petitioner 1 had filed his objections and the explanation furnished for making incorrect averment in the written statement was that the name of the this petitioner was wrongly typed as Surjit Singh son of Harnam Singh at serial number 284 of the list of objectors whereas his correct name is Surat Singh. It was further stated that his objections were disposed of in accordance with law. Petitioners then again sought permission from this Court and produced a certified copy of the jamabandi as Annexure P-13 in which petitioner 2 is shown owner of the land as claimed by him. In pursuance to the directions issued by this Court, the respondents produced the original record in Court and the same has been perused. It is clear from the record and is now admitted on behalf of the respondents that petitioner 2 is the owner of the land as claimed by him. The original jamabandi from the revenue department has been produced in Court and the name of petitioner 2 stands recorded therein in the column of ownership. The explanation furnished for the wrong averments made in the written statement and in the additional affidavit is that the name of petitioner 2 was wrongly recorded by the Patwari as Nirmal Singh in the copy of the jamabandi which was supplied by the revenue department to the Land Acquisition Collector and it is on that basis that the averment was made. It is further explained that when the petitioner produced the certified copy in this Court the Land Acquisition Collector checked the original record and the error was detected. Accordingly a correction has been made in the land acquisition award and also in form VII-LA. In view of what has been stated above, I am proceeding on the basis that petitioner 1 that filed his objections within time and that petitioner 2 who had also filed his objections is also the owner of the land which has been acquired.
5. Now coming to the primary grievance of the petitioners that they were not issued any notice by the Collector when the objections were heard and disposed of. It is clear from the original record that after the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, the Collector, Land Acquisition (Industries Department, Chandigarh) addressed a letter dated 16.8.1991 to the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana bringing to his notice that the Government having notified its intention to acquire a large chunk of land in different villages including Mundian Khurd, the objections filed by the land owners/interested persons were to be disposed of at a public hearing in the Mini Secretariat building at Ludhiana. The programme for the disposal of the objections had also been notified. 21.8.1991 was the date fixed for the hearing of objections pertaining to village Mundian Khurd. The Deputy Commissioner had also been informed that arrangements were being made to serve the land owners with notices through the process-servers Mohinder Singh, Devinder Kumar and Bahadur Singh attached to the office of the Land Acquisition Collector. They were to effect service on 17th, 18th and 19th of August, 1991 for 21.8.1991. The list of objectors prepared by the department contains the names of petitioners 1 and 2 at serial numbers 284 and 283 respectively. There is nothing on the record to show that individual notices were ever issued to any of the land owners or to the petitioners. There is, however, a report in the daily diary register to the effect that substance of the notification under Section 4 was published in the village on 19.6.1991 requiring the land owners to file their objections within 30 days. The learned counsel for the respondents conceded that individual notices had not been issued to the petitioners nor to any other land owner.
6. Mr. M.M. Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the State that the letter of the Collector dated 16.8.1991 read with the report in the daily diary register is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 5-A(2) of the Act and that it was not necessary to serve individual notices on the land owners who had filed their objection. The contention is being noticed only to be rejected. It is by now well settled that the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act are mandatory in nature and non-compliance thereof vitiates the acquisition proceedings. The essence of Section 5-A is the hearing of objections Sub-section (2) thereof mandatorily requires a personal hearing to be given to the land owners. In Sham Nandan Prasad and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1993(4) SCC 255, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Punchhi speaking for the Court observed as under:-
"That the compliance of provisions of Section 5-A is mandatory, is beyond dispute. See in this connection, Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Faird Ahmed Abdul Samad v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad. Affording of opportunity of being heard to the objector is must. The provision embodies a just and wholesome principle that a person whose property is being, or is intended to be, acquired should have the occasion to persuade the authorities concerned that his property be not touched for acquisition. This right is not absolute, however, if the appropriate Government, in its discretion, chooses to dispense with its applicability by invoking urgency provisions of Section 17 of the Act. But once Section 5-A is kept applicable, there is no cause to treat its provisions lightly or casually."
Notices to the petitioners not having been issued under Section 5-A of the Act, all the subsequent acquisition proceedings qua them have been rendered null and void.
7. It was then urged on behalf of the respondents that the acquisition proceedings in village Mundian Khurd have been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Pawan Deep Sandhu v. State of Punjab and Ors. , (1995-1)109 PLR 52 and, therefore, the present writ petition should be dismissed. There is no substance in this contention either. It was not the case of the land owners/petitioners in that case that they had not been issued any notice under Section 5-A of the Act before their objections were disposed of. The judgment of this Court in Pawan Deep Sandhu's case (supra) is, therefore, of no help to the respondents herein.
8. In the result, the notification issued under Section 6 (Annexure P-4 with the writ petition) in so far as it relates to the land of the petitioners stands quashed. It will, however, be open to the respondents to take fresh proceedings in accordance with law. The petitioners shall have their costs which are assessed at Rs. 5,000/-.
9. Before parting with the judgment, it is with great regret that I am compelled to observed that the respondents in the instant case have in a very careless and causal manner filed their written statements making wrong averments therein which they corrected only when the petitioners reiterated the averments made by them in the writ petition and supported them with certified copies of the revenue record. As a matter of fact the writ petition was at one stage dismissed and the order of dismissal was recalled on application filed by the petitioners. In proceedings like the present one where this Court generally relies upon the averments made by the Officers of the State Government, it is all the more necessary that the latter act with care and state facts after verifying the same from the record. At one stage, I was inclined to issue notice of contempt to the respondents for having filed a false written statement but in view of the explanation offered at the time of arguments, I have refrained myself from doing so in the hope that such responsible officers will be more careful in future.