CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17130 OF 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: May 11 , 2011. Parties Name Sukhchain 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. B.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. KDS Sidhu, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No. 1. Mr. H.S.Sethi, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Jasbir Singh, J. (oral) JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) on February 17, 2003, (P-3) to acquire land measuring 2 Bighas for a public purpose, namely, 'laying Sewer and Construction of road linking of 60 feet wide road in Urban Estate, Phase 3, Part 2 with Ajit Road leading to city of Bathinda'. Further challenge has been laid to a declaration CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17130 OF 2003 -2- issued under Section 6 of the Act on February 18, 2003 (P-4) finally ordering acquisition of above said land. When notice of motion was issued on October 31, 2003, following order was passed by this Court: “Inter-alia contends that the petitioners were always ready to give 700 Sq. yards of their land, which was actually acquired for the public purpose, namely, for laying sewer and construction of road, for which notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 17.2.2003 but the respondents are bent upon to take the entire land of the petitioners, i.e., 2017 Sq. yards and the ground given for that, as would be clear from letter, Annexure P-8, is that other land would be required to make the project financially viable. This, learned counsel states, cannot be a public purpose. In other words, the land of the petitioners cannot be acquired to benefit the respondents, who, for gainful purpose, may even allot the shops across the road to others. Notice of motion for 16.1.2004. Stay dispossession beyond 700 Sq. yards of the land of the petitioners” It is not in dispute that vide the notifications, mentioned above, the land was acquired to lay a sewer line and for construction of a road linkage only. By filing an affidavit dated August 17, 2004, , Shri Kirpal Singh, PCS, the then Land Acquisition Collector, has virtually admitted that CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17130 OF 2003 -3- for the public purpose, for which land was acquired, only 700 Sq. Yards of land is needed. Contents of para No. 3 of his affidavit read thus: “That out of the above-mentioned land, 700 sq. yards is to be used for the purpose of laying down the sewerage and for the construction of the road. It is brought to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Court that the sewerage is to be laid down by the Municipal Corporation Bathinda.” To acquire the excess land, i.e., about 1300 Sq. Yards, an attempt has been made to justify it by stating that to execute the public purpose, as above, the respondents have to spend huge amount and by commercially exploiting the said land, the expenditure can be recovered. In that regard, contents of para No. 6 of the affidavit are reproduced here as under: “That in order to recover the amount of Rs. 8,00,000.oo and to make the project viable for the construction of the road and for laying down the sewerage, the total land measuring 2016.66 Sq. yards has been acquired so that in the remaining land measuring approx. 1300 Sq. yards, could be put to commercial use for recovering the amount of Rs. 8,00,000.00 being spent.” We are surprised under what provision of law such an arrangement can be made by the respondents. A very small portion of land is needed for execution of the public purpose. Rest of the land, as per admitted facts, will be used for commercial purpose, for which it was not CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17130 OF 2003 -4- acquired. Otherwise also, we have seen from the record that the land was acquired by invoking the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. Filing of objection under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. Taking note of the facts of the case, we are satisfied that the invoking of the provisions of Section 17 of the Act was not justified. In view of that, we may have quashed the entire acquisition in question. However, taking note of the statement made by counsel for the petitioner on October 31, 2003 and with a view to save the development, we are not adopting that path. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, this writ petition is partly allowed, the State authorities are allowed to acquire only 700 Square Yards of land as per plan and qua rest of the land , acquisition proceedings stand quashed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge May 11 , 2011. DKC