IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5783 of 2010 Date of Decision : August 16, 2010. Judge Singh and others ...... Petitioners Versus. State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. D.S. Gill, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab, for respondents. JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL). By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have laid challenge to the acquisition of their land which was proposed by issuing notification dated 10.06.2009 (Annexure-P-8) under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘the Act’). Further challenge is to a notification dated 10.06.2009 (Annexure-P-9) under Section 6 of the Act. By making reference to the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act, counsel for the petitioners states that simultaneous issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act cannot be sustained. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Radhey Shyam Nigam, 1989 (1) Supreme Court Cases, 591, and another judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Singh and others Versus International Airport Authority of India, 1997 (9) Supreme Court Cases, 132. Counsel has also placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Karamjit Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and others (Civil Writ Petition No. 17663 of 2009, decided on 03.02.2010). Counsel further states that the provisions of C.W.P. No. 5783 of 2010 -2- Section 17 of the Act were invoked simply to peg down the prices. He makes reference to the averments made in paragraph-6 of the writ petition, which reads thus :- “6. That the above said Notification were issued on the ground of urgency for construction of drain, whereas, it is pertinent to mention here that in the area there was water logging problem around year 2000 and that time several drains were constructed and a notification Section 4 dated 15.05.2001 (published in Punjab Government Gazette June 1, 2001) was issued for the construction of Jhurar Link Drain from RD 0 to 5200 out falling into Kuraiwala Enna Khera Malout Drain and at that time the provisions of Section 5(a) were not dispensed with and objections were invited. But later on this project was aborted when the land owners approached the authority concerned with the request that there is no necessity of this drain because already there are several drains in the area and there is no water logging problem on the path of the proposed drain. The copy of the notification dated 15.05.2001 is annexed herewith as Annexure-P-10. " It is case of the petitioners that water logging problem was in existence since the year 2000. At an earlier point of time, notification to acquire land for digging up a drain, which is now in issue, was earlier issued. However, the same was allowed to lapse. Thereafter, neither any fresh survey was conducted nor an attempt was made to look into the water logging problem. Counsel further states that the alleged emergency was not so grave that it was not possible for the State to brook a delay of 30 days so that the petitioners may file their objections to the proposed acquisition. In reply to support the acquisition, counsel for the State has only stated that the same is being done for the public purpose as the matter was emergent. C.W.P. No. 5783 of 2010 -3- We have heard counsel for the parties. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Radhey Shyam Nigam (supra), Mohan Singh and others (supra), and Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Karamjit Singh and others (supra), the simultaneous publication of notices under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act cannot be sustained. Otherwise also, counsel for respondents has failed to show us as to what was the emergency on account of which provisions of Section 17 of the Act were invoked. It appears that issuance of notifications was only a colourable exercise of power because after issuance of notifications under Section 4 read with Section 17 and Section 6 of the Act in the month of June, 2009, no attempt was made to take possession of the land in question. Compensation was not even offered to the land owners as is mandatory under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. It has not been shown to us that any award was passed thereafter. If it be so, we feel that invoking of provisions of Section 17 of the Act were not justified. Under these circumstances, notifications cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, dated 10.06.2009 (Annexure-P-8 and Annexure- P-9 respectively) are quashed. (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE August 16, 2010. sjks.