Case: The State Of Punjab Vs. Gurdial Singh Etc.Withcivil Miscellaneous Petition No. 6336

such exists and I concur. But what have respondents 1 to 21 made out ? When power runs haywire under statutory cover, more needs to be said to make good the exposure. This takes me to a projection, in detail, on the screen of time, of the alleged politicking behind the taking of property challenged in this case.We assume the facts, stated in the counter-affidavits, to the extent not expressly denied, especially because the 22nd respondent, Shri Bajwa, has not cared to contradict the turpitude imputed to him, which is unfortunate. We draw tentative conclusions based on the averments without the advantage of the affected partys response.Long ago in 1962, a site was chosen for a new grain market and the then Chief Minister, Shri Kairon, laid the foundation stone, and some surviving poles bear testimony to this ancient ritual. This spot belo nged to a cousin of Shri Bajwa and was eventually abandoned in favour of the lands of respondents 1 to 21. This venture of 1971 was shot down by judicial fire triggered by the admitted ground of mala fides. Years rolled by, but malice dies hard, if egged on by political scramble. So much so, the same lands were again acquired in 1977, dispensing with so much as a statutory enquiry, undeterred by the earlier decision of the High Court. The respondents again assailed the acquisition as fuelled wholly by vendetta. The High Court struck down the declaration over again, and here we are with an application for leave to appeal against the adverse order.We cannot appreciate the unusual step of quashing the acquisition twice over by the High Court on the rare score of fraud on power unless we are instructed in the bitter longevity of election hostility and the gentle genuflexion of administrative echelons when political bosses express their wishes.The version of the contesting respondents is that two political factions go into action in all elections in Quadian, led by Respondent 22, Satnam Singh Bajwa on the one hand, and his rival Gurbachan Singh Bajwa, supported by the other respondents, on the other. Party labels, where poll politics are personal, are less than borrowed apparel. Satnam ran Congress and won a seat in the Punjab Assembly in 1962 in the teeth of hot contest by Gurbachan and the respondents. This election had it s impact on the mandi acquisition. The site where the foundation stone had been laid belonged to Satnams cousin and this was the best of the four alternatives selected by the Site Selection Board, the least suitable, in their opinion, being of the respondents 1 to 21. But should an M.L.A. oblige his cousin and crush his rival, according to poll dharma? We cannot answer but here Satnams influence postponed acquisition proceedings, notwithstanding the ceremonial stone. In 1967, again, elections came and Satnam won on the Congress ticket. But when the Akali Party formed the Government Satnam decided to serve the people as Minister and for that purpose transferred his politics from Congress to Akali. This ensured the safety of the cousins land from the mandi peril. The Akali Government fell in 1969 but he fought as Akali, won the seat and became Forest Minister. The respondents, all the time, resisted him in vain. When Pres idents Rule came, statutory notifications were issued for acquisition of the first site. The mandi project remained frozen till then and showed signs of life during the short-lived Presidents Rule, only to be given up in 1970 when Satnam became State Minister of Panchayat and Development. He struck when the iron was hot by constituting a Selection Board and appointing himself President thereof. The choice was made of the site which was allegedly the least suitable. Thus the axe fell on the respondents 1 to 21 and lest the take-over be delayed, even the S. 5A enquiry was scuttled by invoking the emergency powers under Sec. 17. At times, natural justice is the natural enemy of intolerant authority. Therefore, the judicial process, under Art. 226, invalidated the acquisition on the ground of mala fides. Back as an M.L.A. in 1972 Satnam nurtured the faction politics, and there is reference in the writ petition to a murder and other official interference which do not d irectly concern the case. He was detained and paroled, and the contestants swear that by political influence and use of relationship he revived the same acquisition once quashed by the High Court. We skip many allegations of vice, of pres sure, of defection as drawing red-herring across the trail. But the crux of the matter is that uncontradicted aspersions on Satnam having pressured the political Government to seize the contestants land goes a long way to affirm the High Courts view, in the background of the long chronicle we have set out. The indefensible resort to Sec. 17 is evidence of the length to which the executive would go to come to terms with men wielding political power. No reason exists for us to grant leave in the case where factually the High Court has found improper attempt to take a citizens land. We need not record any positive finding. It is sufficient to state that no ground to grant leave has been made out.The fourth point about the use of emergency power is well taken. Without referring to supportive case-law it is fundamental that compulsory taking of a mans property is a serious matter and the smaller the man the more serious the matter. Hearing him before depriving him is both reasonable and preemptive of arbitrariness, and denial of this administrative fairness is constitutional anathema except for good reasons. Save in real urgency where public interest does not brook even the minimum time needed t o give a hearing land acquisition authorities should not, having regard to Arts. 14 (and 19), burke an enquiry under Sec. 17 of the Act. Here a slumbering process, pending for years and suddenly exciting itself into immediate forcible taking, makes a travesty of emergency power.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 0

Reasoning from the judgment:
0[ds]We cannot answer but here Satnams influence postponed acquisition proceedings, notwithstanding the ceremonial stone. In 1967, again, elections came and Satnam won on the Congress ticket. But when the Akali Party formed the Government Satnam decided to serve the people as Minister and for that purpose transferred his politics from Congress to Akali. This ensured the safety of the cousins land from the mandi peril. The Akali Government fell in 1969 but he fought as Akali, won the seat and became Forest Minister. The respondents, all the time, resisted him in vain. When Pres idents Rule came, statutory notifications were issued for acquisition of the first site. The mandi project remained frozen till then and showed signs of life during thePresidents Rule, only to be given up in 1970 when Satnam became State Minister of Panchayat and Development. He struck when the iron was hot by constituting a Selection Board and appointing himself President thereof. The choice was made of the site which was allegedly the least suitable. Thus the axe fell on the respondents 1 to 21 and lest thebe delayed, even the S. 5A enquiry was scuttled by invoking the emergency powers under Sec. 17. At times, natural justice is the natural enemy of intolerant authority. Therefore, the judicial process, under Art. 226, invalidated the acquisition on the ground of mala fides. Back as an M.L.A. in 1972 Satnam nurtured the faction politics, and there is reference in the writ petition to a murder and other official interference which do not d irectly concern the case. He was detained and paroled, and the contestants swear that by political influence and use of relationship he revived the same acquisition once quashed by the High Court. We skip many allegations of vice, of pres sure, of defection as drawingacross the trail. But the crux of the matter is that uncontradicted aspersions on Satnam having pressured the political Government to seize the contestants land goes a long way to affirm the High Courts view, in the background of the long chronicle we have set out. The indefensible resort to Sec. 17 is evidence of the length to which the executive would go to come to terms with men wielding political power. No reason exists for us to grant leave in the case where factually the High Court has found improper attempt to take a citizens land. We need not record any positive finding. It is sufficient to state that no ground to grant leave has been made out.The fourth point about the use of emergency power is well taken. Without referring to supportiveit is fundamental that compulsory taking of a mans property is a serious matter and the smaller the man the more serious the matter. Hearing him before depriving him is both reasonable and preemptive of arbitrariness, and denial of this administrative fairness is constitutional anathema except for good reasons. Save in real urgency where public interest does not brook even the minimum time needed t o give a hearing land acquisition authorities should not, having regard to Arts. 14 (and 19), burke an enquiry under Sec. 17 of the Act. Here a slumbering process, pending for years and suddenly exciting itself into immediate forcible taking, makes a travesty of emergency power.