Raj Kumar Gandhi vs Chandigarh Administration

3. In   the   reply   filed   by   the   Chandigarh   Administration,   it   was contended that as many as 31 writ petitions were filed challenging the said notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 respectively. In the writ   petitions   including   C.W.P   No.2126   of   1993,   further   land acquisition   proceedings   were   stayed   by   an   interim   order   dated 24.2.1993.   Ultimately   these   writ   petitions   were   dismissed   by   the Division   Bench   on   22.9.1995.   Thereafter,   yet   another   writ   petition C.W.P. No.4433 of 1996 was filed in which further proceedings stayed till  further  orders.  It  was  allowed   by  a  short  order dated   11.8.1997 2 without   noticing  the   earlier  stay   of  proceedings   and   the   notification under   section   4   and   declaration   under   section   6   were   quashed. Chandigarh   Administration   then   filed   review   application   which   was allowed   by   a   detailed   order   dated   31.1.2003   and   order   dated 11.8.1997, allowing writ petition, was recalled. A number of other writ petitions   were   also   filed   being   C.W.P.   No.14804   of   1993,   C.W.P. No.14892 of 1998, and C.W.P. No.14903 of 1998. There was a stay of further proceedings but ultimately these were dismissed on 30.9.1998. Another batch of writ petitions being C.W.P. No.10287 of 1997, C.W.P. No.10668   of   1997,   C.W.P.   No.10676   of   1997,   C.W.P.   No.10589   of 1997,   C.W.P.   No.10960   of   1997,   C.W.P.   No.10661   of   1997,   C.W.P. No.12043 of 1997 and C.W.P. No.16715 of 1997 were also filed. There was a stay of further proceedings but ultimately these writ petitions were also dismissed by the Division Bench on 4.8.1998. Thus, there were 43 different writ petitions. Further proceedings remained under stay   from   24.2.1993   to   31.1.2003.   Thereafter,   public   notice   under section   9   was   issued   on   6.2.2003   for   filing   the   objections   up   to 28.2.2003.   Public   notice   to   this   effect   was   published   in   leading newspapers   on   8.2.2003   and   9.2.2003.   Individual   intimations   were also   sent   to   all   the   landowners   to   file   their   objections.   Thereafter, award was pronounced on 5.3.2003 and again  ex parte interim stay had been obtained on 1.3.2005 by mentioning the wrong facts. After 3 excluding the period of stay the award had been pronounced within the period of two years from the date of declaration published under section 6 of the Act. The construction raised was unauthorised and against   the   provisions   of   the   Periphery   Control   Act.   Therefore,   the exemption was not granted. Notifications under section 4 were issued after sanctioning by the Administrator. Thus, there was no illegality in the acquisition.

Therefore, the period during which the order of dispossession granted by the High Court operated, should be excluded in computation" of the period of three years covered by Clause (1) of the first proviso to the Land Acquisition Act. When it is so computed, the declaration published on the second occasion is perfectly valid. Under these circumstances, we do not find any justification to quash the notification published under Section 6 dated May 17, 1984. The review petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.”

18. Apart from that the question of an award having been approved by the advisor to the Administrator was raised in C.W.P. No.17935 of 2014 – Gagandeep Kang & Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court and the S.L.P. filed in this Court has also been dismissed by this Court. S.L.P. [C] No.355 of 2015 has also been dismissed along with two other matters by this Court.

20. Resultantly, the appeals being devoid of merits deserve dismissal and the same are hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs, as incurred.

MAY 11, 2018.