IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: April 6, 2010 CWP No. 6155 of 2010 Ravinder Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CWP No. 6205 of 2010 Buli and others …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 6155 and 6205 of 2010 because in both the petitions common question of law and facts are involved. These petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges notification dated 26.9.2007, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 25.9.2008, made under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioners have claimed that they purchased land for residential purposes, which is adjacent to the Abadi of Village Islamnagar, C.W.P. Nos. 6155 & 6205 of 2010 Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula. They have also set up their residential houses on the land in question. On 26.9.2007, the respondent State issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act, proposing to acquire land for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilization of land for residential area for Sector-2 Part 3, 4 and 5 Pinjore by the Haryana Urban Development Authority under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. The petitioners’ land was also included in the said notification. They filed their objections under Section 5-A of the Act on the ground that they had purchased the land for setting up their residential houses and that the land in question was surrounded by thickly populated area and no useful purpose would be served by acquiring the same. Thus, they sought release of their respective land from acquisition. On 25.9.2008, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made acquiring the land including that of the petitioners. After issuance of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, on 15.5.2009, some of the land owners sought information under the Right to Information Act with regard to the decision of objections and also sought copy of the report sent by the Land Acquisition Collector. On 19.5.2009, another application was submitted seeking information as to who was the competent authority to hear the objections and as to whether any powers of the Land Acquisition Collector were conferred to the authority who has decided the objections. On 20.8.2009, the following information was provided:- “1. The competent authority to hear the objections filed under Section 5A of the Act is Land Acquisition Collector. 2. Sh. K.K. Amrohi, DRO had been given the Additional charge of the post of Land Acquisition Officer, Panchkula vide 2 C.W.P. Nos. 6155 & 6205 of 2010 letter of the Government bearing No. 1/21/2008-1S/II dated 22.05.2008. 3. Sh. K.K. Amrohi, DRO had not been conferred the power of Collector.” On 4.12.2009, the other information sought by the land owners was also provided. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the objections filed by them under Section 5-A of the Act have been dealt with in a mechanical manner and the Land Acquisition Officer while recommending the acquisition did not consider any of the objections, inasmuch as, on 23.7.2008 he has disposed of all the objections in one day. It has also been alleged that Shri K.K. Amrohi, who has decided the objections and made the recommendations had not been conferred the powers of Collector, which itself vitiates the acquisition process. Shri K.K. Amrohi, who is a non- Haryana Civil Service-cum-District Revenue officer, Panchkula, was given only the additional charge of the post of Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estate, Panchkula, vide order dated 22.4.2008. The only argument raised by Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioners after referring to the provisions of Section 3(c) of the Act, which explains the meaning of expression ‘Collector’, is that the present acquisition proceedings have not been conducted by an officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector under the Act. He has drawn our attention to para 3 of the communication dated 20.8.2009, whereby information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been furnished to the land owners, which is to the effect that Shri K.K. Amrohi, District Revenue Officer had not been conferred the powers of Collector. Emphasising on the word ‘specially’ 3 C.W.P. Nos. 6155 & 6205 of 2010 occurring in Section 3(c) of the Act, learned counsel has argued that any officer specially appointed by the Government to perform the functions of a Collector can only be termed as the competent authority. Even under Section 5-A of the Act, the objections to the acquisition could only be made to the Collector in writing and the Collector alone is empowered to make a report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations. In that regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on the 3-Judge Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Abdul Hussain Tayabali v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1968 SC 432. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the paper book with his able assistance we are of the considered view that there is no merit in these petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. The respondents have followed the procedure for acquisition of land for public purpose, namely, for the development and utilisation of land for residential area for Sector-2 Part 3, 4 and 5 Pinjore. The notices under Section 4 of the Act were published in the Gazette, newspapers and in the locality as per requirement of Section 4 of the Act. Thereafter objections under Section 5-A were received and decided as per law. No objection was raised to the irregularity of hearing of objection by ‘Collector’ for want of notification. It is only a irregularity. The sole argument that Shri K.K. Amrohi was not specially appointed as Collector has not impressed us. It may be true that Shri K.K. Amrohi, District Revenue Officer, Panchkula, had not been specifically conferred the powers of Collector but at the same time it has come on record that he was posted as Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estate, Panchkula, against a vacant post, vide order dated 22.4.2008. Meaning thereby he was 4 C.W.P. Nos. 6155 & 6205 of 2010 required to discharge all the functions of the post of Land Acquisition Officer under the Act. While discharging such functions he made recommendations regarding acquisition in question. Therefore, the same cannot be invalidated. It is at best a mere irregularity, which would not vitiate the acquisition proceedings. Furthermore, on 20.11.2008, the respondent State of Haryana has issued a notification under the provisions of Clause (c) of Section 3 of the Act, appointing all the Sub-Divisional Officer(C), District Revenue Officers and Land Acquisition Officers in Haryana, who have passed the departmental examination and have attained the experience of working for a period of six months, as Assistant Collector Ist Grade and Land Acquisition Collectors within their respective jurisdiction. The aforementioned notification reads thus:- “No. 50/17/08-5S(1). – Under the provisions of clause (C) of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Governor of Haryana hereby appoints all the Sub-Divisional Officers (C), District Revenue Officers and Land Acquisition Officers in Haryana who have passed the departmental examination and have attained the experience of working for a period of six months as Assistant Collector 1st Grade and Land Acquisition Collectors within their respective jurisdiction.” Thus, we find no force in the argument raised by the learned counsel. Even the reliance placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Hussain Tayabali (supra) would not come to the rescue of the petitioners. In that case, the construction of the expression "specially appointed" within the meaning of Section 3 (c) of the Act read with Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Company's) Rules, came up for 5 C.W.P. Nos. 6155 & 6205 of 2010 consideration before Hon’ble the Supreme Court. By a notification, dated October 1, 1963, issued under Section 3 (c) of the Act, the State Government authorised all Special Land Acquisition Officers in the State to perform the functions of Collectors under that Act within the area of their respective jurisdictions. Question arose whether that notification satisfied the requirements of Section 3 (c) and had the effect of specially empowering all the Land Acquisition Officers as a class to perform the duties under the Act. Shelat J., speaking for a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges, answered this question by making the following observations: "9. ……In our view, those words (specially appointed) simply mean that as such an officer is not a Collector and cannot perform the functions of a Collector under the Act, he has to be "specially appointed", that is, appointed for the specific purpose of performing those functions. The word "specially" has therefore reference to the special purpose of appointment and is not used to convey the sense of a special as against a general appointment. The word "specially" thus connotes the appointment of an officer or officers to perform functions which ordinarily a Collector would perform under the Act. It qualifies the word "appointed" and means no more than that he is appointed specially to perform the functions entrusted by the Act to the Collector. It is the appointment therefore which is special and not the person from amongst several such officers. Besides Section 15 of the General Clauses Act provides that where a Central Act empowers an authority to appoint a person to perform a certain function, such power can be exercised either 6 C.W.P. Nos. 6155 & 6205 of 2010 by name or by virtue of office. There would therefore be no objection if the appointment is made of an officer by virtue of his office and not by his name. Therefore even if the meaning of the word "specially" were to be that which is canvassed by Mr. Sanghi the Government could have issued separate notifications for each of the Sp. LA Officers authorising them individually to perform the functions of the Collector within their respective area of jurisdiction. Instead of doing that, if one notification were to be issued authorising each of them to perform those functions there could be no valid objection. Such a notification would have the same force as a separate notification in respect of each individual Sp. LA officer. Such a notification would mean that the Government thereby appoints each of the existing Sp. LA Officers to perform the functions of the Collector within their respective areas. It is true that the notification also declares that such of the Sp. LA officers who may be appointed in future are also authorised to perform the Collector's functions. That only means that whenever a person would be appointed as a Sp. LA officer for a particular area, the notification would in effect invest him at the same time with the authority to perform the Collector's functions. The appointment of each of these officers therefore must be held to be special and not general. 10. But Mr. Sanghi argued that even so the notification did not "appoint" Master but merely authorised him to perform the Collector's functions. In our view, the distinction is without difference. In the context of Section 3 (c) when an officer is 7 C.W.P. Nos. 6155 & 6205 of 2010 authorised to perform the function of the Collector it means that he is appointed to perform those functions. The clause does not contemplate a separate or an additional post. What it means is that some officer who is already in the Government employment is authorised to work as a Collector for the purpose, of the Act. In this sense whether he is appointed or authorised to perform the Collector's functions he would be complying with the terms of that clause. (emphasis added) As a sequel to the above discussion, these petitions fail and the same are dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) April 6, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 8