IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.5976 of 2006 Date of decision: 7.1.2009 Gurpreet Kaur -----Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harmanjit Singh for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab ----- ORDER: 1. This petition had been filed against acquisition proceedings initiated vide notification dated 3.7.2005 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”). Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 17.3.2006. 2. Grounds raised in the writ petition, inter-alia, are that notification under Section 6 of the Act has been issued without deciding objections under Section 5A of the Act. Though vide order dated 17.1.2006 objections under Section 5A were decided, C.W.P. No.5976 of 2006 objections of the petitioner were deferred to be decided at the time of award. Thus, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued without deciding the objections. Objection of the petitioner to acquisition was that the land of the petitioner could be used for petrol pump for which the petitioner had obtained ‘no objection’, the land being within the communication zone meant for petrol pump and other such facilities. Notice was issued on April 20, 2006. On 27.8.2007, this Court recorded that counsel for the State was unable to make a statement whether objections under Section 5A of the Act had been decided or not. On that ground, dispossession was stayed. 3. On 13.11.2007, it was stated on behalf of the State that objections under Section 5A of the Act had been decided but the record was not available. For that purpose, the matter was adjourned from time to time including on November 30, 2007 and March 12, 2008. 4. On March 19, 2008, it was noticed that the objections of the petitioner had still not been decided. A direction was issued that objections be decided within 2 weeks. Thereafter, objections were decided on 25.3.2008 and conveyed to the petitioner under the covering letter dated 1.4.2008 Annexure P-16. 5. In view of above development, the petitioner filed an amended petition to challenge the order rejecting the objections. 2 C.W.P. No.5976 of 2006 6. Reply to unamended petition was filed by Chief Town Planner, Punjab. In para 4, contention that land fell in communication zone was disputed. 7. No reply has been filed to amended petition inspite of opportunity given. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. Contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are that notification dated 17.3.2006 under Section 6 of the Act was void, as objections under Section 5A of the Act filed by the petitioner had not been decided till then. It is also submitted that award has also not been made within two years of the notification under Section 6 of the Act. No fresh notification under Section 6 of the Act has been issued after deciding the objections under Section 5A of the Act on 25.3.2008. Moreover, a period of more than one year had already lapsed on 25.3.2008, the date on which objections were decided from notification under Section 4 of the Act and thus, notification under Section 4 of the Act itself had lapsed in absence of notification under Section 6 of the Act being made within one year. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that objection of the petitioner was duly considered and in the noting of the Collector, this fact was noticed that the land was not in communication zone and no petrol pump could be set up there. However, it is not disputed on behalf of respondents that till the date of notification under Section 6 of the Act i.e. 17.3.2006, objections of the petitioner were not decided and decision on the objections of 3 C.W.P. No.5976 of 2006 the petitioner was beyond one year of notification under Section 4 of the Act and no fresh notification under Section 6 of the Act has been issued nor could be issued after one year from date of notification under Section 4. It is also stated that no award has been passed on account of stay granted in other matters. However, particulars of other matters are not available. 11. We are of the view that on undisputed facts, objections of the petitioner under Section 5A of the Act having not been decided by the date of notification under Section 6 of the Act and decision on such objections was taken after expiry of one year from the date of notification under Section 4, by which time, acquisition proceedings had lapsed by virtue of proviso (ii) to Section 6 of the Act. 12. In view of above, we hold that notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 3.7.2005 lapsed qua the petitioner on account of no decision being taken on her objections under Section 5A of the Act before notification under Section 6 of the Act i.e. 17.3.2006 and decision taken on objections of the petitioner on 25.3.2008 being beyond a period of one year. There is no material to hold that there was any stay on account of which, period could stand extended beyond 2nd July, 2006, on which date one year lapsed. In this view of the matter, we need not go into the question of correctness or otherwise of the decision on objections under Section 5A of the Act or the effect of not making the award within two years of the date of notification under Section 6 of the Act, as required under Section 4 C.W.P. No.5976 of 2006 11-A of the Act. It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of fresh proceedings being taken in accordance with law. 13. The petition is disposed of accordingly. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE January 07, 2009 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ashwani JUDGE 5