CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5795 OF 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: January 07, 2011. Parties Name Ishar Singh and others ...PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Punjab and another ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg PRESENT: Mr. Pawan Kumar, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Jasbir Rattan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab; Jasbir Singh, J. (oral) Judgment. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash a notification dated July 24, 1987, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) proposing to acquire 2 Acres, 6 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land, owned by the petitioners, for a public purpose, namely, establishment of a New Mandi Township at Dhuri. It is apparent from the record that at the stage of filing this writ petition, the petitioners had filed objections only under Section 5-A of the Act opposing the acquisition. However, no action was taken by the authorities. Taking note of that fact, this Court passed the following order on November 19, 1987: CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5795 OF 1987 -2- “To be listed for motion hearing as and when the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act are decided.” Thereafter, it appears that decision was taken on objections filed by the petitioners and subsequently a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on February 8, 1988. In the meantime, this writ petition was admitted for regular hearing on August 8, 1988. It is very surprising that despite declaration having been issued and decision taken by the authorities on objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act, no attempt was made by the petitioners to amend this writ petition and to lay challenge to the final declaration and also to pin point any fault so far as decision taken by the authorities upon objections filed by the petitioners are concerned. When this matter came up for hearing before this Court on August 17, 2005, following order was passed: “During arguments, it has been stated by counsel for the petitioners that dispossession of the petitioners was stayed by this Court in the year 1988. Thereafter, New Mandi Township, Dhuri came into existence over rest of the area. By referring to site plan, Annexure P/6, counsel further states that land bearing Khasra Nos. 2572 and 2573, out of which 6 Biswas and 7 Biswas respectively, has been proposed to be acquired, falls outside rest of the bigger chunk of land which was acquired for establishment of Mandi Township. Counsel further submits CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5795 OF 1987 -3- that total land of the petitioners under acquisition is 14 Bighas and 11 Biswas, houses of the petitioners are situated over Khasra Nos., referred to above, and land proposed to be acquired out of those two Khasra numbers is necessary for proper utilisation of their houses. Counsel further contends that if the department is ready to exempt that much land out of Khasra nos., referred to above, then petitioners shall accept acquisition so far as their other land measuring more than 14 Bighas is concerned. Statement, referred to above, has been made on instructions from Jaswant Singh son of petitioner No. 2, who is present in Court. In view of facts, mentioned above, Shri Maini is directed to file an affidavit of some responsible officer as to why suggestion made above, by the petitioners, is not acceptable to the government. Furthermore, why this small piece of land, which admittedly, is attached to the houses of the petitioners, is necessary for acquisition. Entire lay out plan of the Mandi Township be also produced in Court on the next date of hearing.” In response thereto, an affidavit has been filed by Mr. Jagir Singh, PCS, Collector, Land Acquisition Department, Punjab, Chandigarh, wherein it is stated that after passing of the above said order, the site was inspected on September 6, 2005, and it was found that a Grain Market as well as Vegetable Market are in existence in this Mandi. A large number of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5795 OF 1987 -4- shops and shops-cum-flats have been sold in the Grain Market and also in the Vegetable Market. Relevant portion of the affidavit reads thus: “3. That in pursuance to the order passed by this Hon'ble Court, the department was asked to look into the feasibility in terms of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. Accordingly, the Tehsildar of the Department alongwith other officials visited the site on 6.9.2005 and examined all the facts with the assistance of record and layout plan. After the above exercise it was found that there is a Grain Market as well as a Vegetable Market housed in this Mandi. The Grain Market consists of about 128 Grain-shops-cum-flats, 55 shops-cum-flats, 116 Booths and 20 semi industries and in the Sabji Mandi there are 22 service booths, 22 sabji/fruit/chara booths and 23 sabji shops in addition to one weigh bridge. Entry point to the Grain Market has been shown as Point-A and Exit point for the Grain Market has been shown as Point-B in the site plan a copy of which is enclosed herewith as Annexure R-1. Similarly, for the Sabji Mandi the entry point has been shown as Point -C and the Exit Point has been as Point-D. The acquired land in question is in the middle of the passage which has been left for exit from the Sabji Mandi. Keeping in view the lay out plan, there is no other exit point for the Sabji Mandi. Therefore, no other alternative exit point can be provided for the Sabji mandi. 4.That it will be worthwhile to mention here that during the crop season number of tractor trolleys, bullock carts and hand CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5795 OF 1987 -5- carts are brought by the farmers and because of this slow moving vehicles usually the traffic is blocked inside the grain market that is the reason that one entry point and one exit point has been provided for the grain market. Similarly, one entry point and one exit point has been provided to the Sabji Mandi. 5. That majority of the grain/vegetable shops have already been auctioned by the Department and most of them have been constructed at the spot. Therefore at this stage it is not possible for the Department to change the lay out plan for the purposes of providing any alternative passage. 6. That it may be stated here that no part of the acquired land touches the road and the land between the road and the Mandi is neither the part of the acquired land nor it belongs to the Department. Therefore, question of breadth of the area which touches the main road does not arise.” At the time of arguments, counsel for the petitioners tried to impress upon us that the construction exists in two Khasra numbers, i.e., 2572 and 2573 and rest of the land adjoins the constructed building. However, perusal of the site plan shown to us by counsel for the petitioners at the time of arguments indicates that the land under acquisition is in patches and most of it falls just in the heart of the Grain Market and the Vegetable Market. It is primary contention of the counsel for the petitioners that before issuing declaration under Section 6 of the Act, when deciding CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5795 OF 1987 -6- objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act, there is no proper application of mind. Possibly we cannot express any opinion in that regard. This writ petition is pending since the year 1987. Objections were decided before issuance of the declaration on February 8, 1988. During the intervening period, no attempt was made to get copy of the order passed on objections filed by the petitioners and put it on record of this case. Otherwise also, in the reply, it has been specifically stated that objections under Section 5-A of the Act, were filed by the petitioners on August 31, 1987, they were given personal hearing by the Land Acquisition Collector on October 26, 1987. The objections did not find favour with the Land Acquisition Collector, who recommended the case for acquisition of land to the competent authority. It is further said that declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on February 8, 1988. To the averments made in the written- statement, replication has not been filed. In view of facts of this case, ratio of the judgment in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai and others, (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 627, is not applicable to this case. Otherwise also on the basis of objections, which were filed before the Land Acquisition Collector, no argument has been raised in that regard in this case. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge January 07, 2011. DKC