Case: Gunwant Kaur &amp; Others Vs. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda &amp; Others

should be acquired for the purpose for which it was intended to be acquired.The appellants contended that they had no opportunity of making their representations, for the notification gave no notice to them that the land in their occupation was intended to be acquired.11. In summarily rejecting the petition two grounds were given in the order of the High Court - first that the Collector was satisfied that the true area of the land demarcated corresponded to the area notified and that it had been demarcated on the ground with as much accuracy as was reasonably possible, and the second, that the question raised was one of fact. The writ petition filed before the High Court was not in the nature of an appeal against the decision of the Collector.The Collector was acting for and on behalf of the State Government to make an offer of compensation for the lands to be acquired. The appellants were entitled to challenge the correctness of the Collectors opinion. Again the jurisdiction of the Collector depended upon the issue of a valid notification and the mere fact that the Collector was satisfied that the true area of land demarcated "Corresponded to the area notified" - whatever that expression may mean - did not prevent the owners of the lands from contending before the High Court that they had no opportunity of making their representations under Section 5-A of the Act and of satisfying the Collector that their lands should not be acquired.The three appellants had applied to the Local Municipal Committee for constructing buildings on their plots and Municipal Committee had sanctioned the constructions. Prima facie, this may indicate that in the view of the Municipal Committee the lands on which the buildings were allowed to be constructed were not within the area notified for acquisition or would not be needed for the road.12. The Government of Punjab did not publish any plans, nor did they inform the owners of the lands in the locality to which the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act related, that plans were available for inspection at the office of the Collector: the owners of the lands were only informed that some parts of Khasra No. 2030 belonging to the owners were required. There is no evidence on the record that the entire area of khasra No. 2030 was intended to be acquired. The notification did not, therefore, give due notice to the owners that their lands were intended to be notified for acquisition. In paragraph 2 of the petition it is also averred that there was no due publication of the notification in the locality by the Collector.13. The pleas raised by the petitioners about the infirmity in the notification and the proceedings for compulsory acquisition were serious.14. The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit in reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine.The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioners right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made, dispute sought to be agitated, or that the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons.15. From the averments made in the petition filed by the appellants it is clear that in proof of a large number of allegations the appellants relied upon documentary evidence and the only matter in respect of which conflict of facts may possibly arise related to the due publication of the notification under Section 4 by the Collector.16. In the present case, in our judgment, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition on the ground that it will not determine disputed question of fact. The High Court has jurisdiction to determine questions of fact, even if they are in dispute, and the present, in our judgment, is a case in which in the interests of both the parties the High Court should have entertained the petition and called for an affidavit in reply from the respondents, and should have proceeded to try the petition instead of relegating the appellants to a separate suit.17. It was urged by Mr. Hazarnavis on behalf of the Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, that the three appellants were purchasers of the lands claimed by them after the notification under Section 4 was issued and they had no right to challenge the issue of the notification. If, however, the notification under Section 4 was vague, the three appellants who are purchasers of the land had title thereto may challenge the validity of the notification. The appellants have spent in putting up substantial structures considerable sums of money and we are unable to hold that merely because they had purchased the lands after the issue of the notification under Section 4 they are debarred from challenging the validity of the notification, or from contending that it did not apply to their lands.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]7. The notification under Section 4 is the foundation of a proceeding for acquisition of land. In the present case the notification under Section 4 did not set out with precision the parts of Khasra No. 2030 belonging to different owners sought to be acquired. The notification merely set out the areas intended to be acquired out of Khasra No. 2030 but the location of the areas under Khasra No. 2030 could not thereby be ascertained. No plans demarcating the land to be acquired were published or made available to the owners of the land.In the present case on order under Section 17 (4) was issued by the Government of Punjab. The owners of the lands were, therefore, entitled to be heard on the question whether their lands or any land in the locality should be acquired for the purpose for which it was intended to be acquired.In summarily rejecting the petition two grounds were given in the order of the High Courtfirst that the Collector was satisfied that the true area of the land demarcated corresponded to the area notified and that it had been demarcated on the ground with as much accuracy as was reasonably possible, and the second, that the question raised was one of fact. The writ petition filed before the High Court was not in the nature of an appeal against the decision of theCollector was acting for and on behalf of the State Government to make an offer of compensation for the lands to be acquired. The appellants were entitled to challenge the correctness of the Collectorsis no evidence on the record that the entire area of khasra No. 2030 was intended to be acquired. The notification did not, therefore, give due notice to the owners that their lands were intended to be notified for acquisition. In paragraph 2 of the petition it is also averred that there was no due publication of the notification in the locality by the Collector.13. The pleas raised by the petitioners about the infirmity in the notification and the proceedings for compulsory acquisition were serious.14. The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit in reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine.The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioners right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made, dispute sought to be agitated, or that the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons.15. From the averments made in the petition filed by the appellants it is clear that in proof of a large number of allegations the appellants relied upon documentary evidence and the only matter in respect of which conflict of facts may possibly arise related to the due publication of the notification under Section 4 by the Collector.16. In the present case, in our judgment, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition on the ground that it will not determine disputed question of fact. The High Court has jurisdiction to determine questions of fact, even if they are in dispute, and the present, in our judgment, is a case in which in the interests of both the parties the High Court should have entertained the petition and called for an affidavit in reply from the respondents, and should have proceeded to try the petition instead of relegating the appellants to a separateIf, however, the notification under Section 4 was vague, the three appellants who are purchasers of the land had title thereto may challenge the validity of the notification. The appellants have spent in putting up substantial structures considerable sums of money and we are unable to hold that merely because they had purchased the lands after the issue of the notification under Section 4 they are debarred from challenging the validity of the notification, or from contending that it did not apply to their lands.