CWP No. 1614 of 1990 and other connected case 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 12.07.2011 CWP No. 1614 of 1990 Mohan Lal Sahni etc. ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Haryana etc. ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 1621 of 1990 M/s Ambika Stone Crushers etc. ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Haryana etc. ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, and Mr. Arstu Chopra, Advocate, for Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G. Haryana. *** Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This order will dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 1614 and 1621 of 1990. For the purpose of dictating order, facts are being mentioned from CWP No. 1614 of 1990. By filing this writ petition, notifications issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') on 02.07.1985 CWP No. 1614 of 1990 and other connected case 2 and 27.06.1986 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) have been impugned. The challenge is also laid to an Award passed on 26.06.1988. The primary objection against Award is that the officer, who passed that Award, was not notified as a Land Acquisition Collector by issuing a proper notification by the competent authority. In both the writ petitions, for issuance of notice of motion, reliance was placed on pendency of CWP No. 1225 of 1990, in which similar objection was raised regarding the notifications and the Award mentioned above. At the time of arguments, Sh. Sehgal has brought to our notice that CWP No. 1225 of 1990 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 28.02.1992 and thereafter, Review Application No. 117 of 1992 was also dismissed on 02.12.1994. The order passed in the Review Application reads thus:- “ Learned counsel for the applicants has sought review of the order inter alia contenting that it was conceded before the Court that Mr. Mangal ram Bhagwaria was duly appointed as Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula to give the award dated 26.08.1988 and though it is not specifically so recorded in the judgment, as on principle, it has been accepted that the award given by a not duly appointed Collector is a void award. Consequently, the impugned order is liable to be reviewed and the award given by Mr. Bhagwaria is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel in order to support his contention, produced again today before us the notification issued u/s 3 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 4.11.1987 which runs as under:- “The following officers to perform the functions of CWP No. 1614 of 1990 and other connected case 3 the Collector under the Act in the Haryana State:- ... ... ... 3. Shri Mangal Ram Bhagwaria, L.A.O., Urban Estate, Faridabad, Panchkula.” It was further pointed out that the Director, Urban Estates, Panchkula ordered on 26.6.1988 that Mr. Mangal Ram Bhagwaria, Land Acquisition Officer, Faridabad at Panchkula will also look after the work of Land Acquisition Officer, Panchkula till further orders. It is contended that the Director, Urban Estates had no authority to appoint the Land Acquisition Collector. In our considered view, reading of the notification in its pith and substance left us with no other discernible inference that Mr. Mangal Ram Bhagwaria was appointed Land Acquisition Collector under the Act for Faridabad as well as for Panchkula. Interpretation has to be given to make a notification workable and not to render the acts of the State as negated. Mere issuance of the order by the Director, Urban Estates will not change the character of notification of appointment of a Collector by the State. It may be observed by way of clarification or under some assumption made by the Director of Urban Estates with respect to the discharge of functions as a Land Acquisition Officer by Mr. Mangal Bhagwaria. However, the interpretation put by the Director, Urban Estates will not change the character of the notification. As we have observed that the notification has categorically conferred the power of a Collector for Faridabad as well as CWP No. 1614 of 1990 and other connected case 4 Panchkula, the award has been given by a duly authorized person i.e. Collector, Land Acquisition, Panchkula. No other point has been raised by the learned counsel.” The objection of the petitioner therein that the officer, who had passed an Award, was not notified as a Land Acquisition Collector was negated by this Court and it was held that the Award has rightly been passed. Counsel for the petitioners made a feeble attempt to distinguish the facts of this case from the above-mentioned case. However, he failed to do so. In view of the facts mentioned above, these writ petitions are also dismissed in terms of the orders passed in CWP No. 1225 of 1990 on 28.02.1992 and Review Application No. 117 of 1992 on 02.12.1994. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE July 12, 2011 pj CWP No. 1614 of 1990 and other connected case 5