C.W.P. No.19844 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.19844 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 30, 2009 Vijay Pal and others .....PETITIONERS Versus State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR --- Present: Mr.Avnish Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Palika Monga, A.A.G.,Haryana, for respondents No.1 and 3. Mr.Manish Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioners, who claim themselves to be owners in possession of the land measuring 34 Kanals 4 Marlas situated in Village Ghamroj, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon, have filed the instant petition for quashing the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent-State by invoking the urgency provisions under Section 17(2)(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). In this case, a notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 (2)(c) of the Act was published on 8.4.2008 for acquisition of 68 Kanals 9 Marlas of land of Villages Ghamroj and Budhera, including the land of the petitioners, for a public purpose, namely, for construction of water treatment C.W.P. No.19844 of 2008 -2- plant and underground tank for Sohna Town as well as for Villages Budhera and Ghamroj. In the notification, it was categorically stated that Governor of Haryana was satisfied that the aforesaid land was urgently required, therefore, the requirement of filing objections under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act. On 17.10.2008, notification/declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued, and after issuance of the said notification, the instant writ petition was filed by the petitioners on 20.11.2008. It is conceded position that during the pendency of this writ petition, the award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector and the petitioners have also received the compensation, though under protest. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners made two-fold submission. Firstly, that the respondent-State had invoked the urgency provisions without there being any actual urgency in the matter. It is argued that notification/declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued after six months from the date of the notification issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(2)(c) of the Act. This fact clearly indicates that there was no urgency involved in the matter and between the said period the petitioners could have been given an opportunity to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Secondly, learned counsel submitted that mere existence of the urgency itself is not sufficient for dispensing with the requirement of Section 5-A of the Act. Before dispensing with the requirement of the said provisions, the respondent-State was required to frame an opinion, which in the instant case, was not framed by the appropriate Government by applying its mind. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued C.W.P. No.19844 of 2008 -3- that any post notification delay subsequent to the decision of the State Government dispensing with an enquiry under Section 5-A by invoking powers under Section 17(1) of the Act will not invalidate the decision itself. They further submit that the question of urgency of an acquisition under Sections 17(1) and (4) of the Act is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the Government and ordinarily it is not open to the court to make a scrutiny of the propriety of that satisfaction on an objective appraisal of facts. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any substance in the instant writ petition. Undisputedly, the land in question has been acquired for a public purpose, i.e., for construction of water treatment plant and underground tank. The respondent-State while invoking the urgency provisions under Sections 17(1) and (4), and dispensing with the requirement of Section 5-A of the Act, has categorically framed a subjective opinion that the land of Villages Ghamroj and Budhera was required for an urgent public purpose. This satisfaction is the subjective satisfaction of the respondent-Authority, which cannot be gone into by the Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction in absence of any contrary material. In the instant case, there is no allegation that the State Government or its officers have acted mala fidely while exercising the urgency provisions. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in First Land Acquisition Collector and others v. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli and another (2002) 4 SCC 160. Regarding contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued after a lapse of six months, and this fact itself reveals that the urgency provisions were wrongly and illegally invoked, we are of the opinion that any post C.W.P. No.19844 of 2008 -4- notification delay subsequent to the decision of the State Government dispensing with the requirement of Section 5-A by invoking the urgency provisions of the Act, will not invalidate the decision itself specifically when no mala fide on the part of the Government or its officers is alleged. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Norodhi Prakash Gangoli's case (supra) and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Luxmi Narain v. State of Haryana, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 863. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE November 30, 2009 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) vkg JUDGE