State Of Punjab And Others vs Sanjeet Singh Grewal And Others

2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The State of Punjab issued Notifications Exhibits P-1 to P-29 dated March 13, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for acquisition of about 9354 acres of land in 29 villages of the district of Ropar. The acquisition was proposed to be made for "a public purpose namely for setting up of new town, Anandgarh". Objections were invited against the proposed acquisition. Several writ petitions were filed before the High Court challenging the aforesaid Notifications alleging that the Notifications had been issued in derogation of the provisions of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1995'). It was stated that to set up a new town, the site had first to be selected by the Board constituted under the Act of 1995. The Board was thereafter required to designate a planning agency. This was not done. The provisions of Sections 56, 57, 58 and 59 of the Act of 1995 were completely ignored. Though the New Town Planning and Development Authority for Anandgarh was constituted by the Government on May 20, 1999 under Section 31 of the Act of 1995, in the absence of a decision of the Board under Sections 56 and 57 of the Act of 1995, the aforesaid Special Town Planning Authority for Anandgarh could not take up the planning and development of the new township. It was alleged that a large number of influential persons including senior bureaucrats had bought land in the area with a view to earn profit since the Government had announced compensation at an exorbitant rate. It was also submitted that the provisions of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Periphery Act') and the rules framed thereunder have been violated. Apart from these legal submissions it was also urged that the site was not suitable for a new town.

6. Considering the question whether the provisions of the 1995 Act were followed, it noticed the concession made by the State that the matter with regard to the selection of site for the new township was never referred to the Board. The New Town Planning and Development Authority for Anandgarh constituted under Section 31 of the Act had considered three sites and forwarded its recommendation to the Chief Town Planner who after examination of the matter selected the site in question. The matter was placed before the State Cabinet for its approval which was granted on January 12, 2000. On February 24, 2000 the aforesaid development authority requested the State Government to acquire the lands in question and accordingly the impugned Notifications were issued on March 13, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The High Court after considering the Scheme of the Act upheld the contention urged on behalf of the writ petitioners that only the Board constituted under Section 3 of the Act of 1995 could, in exercise of its authority under Sections 14 and 56 of the Act read with Rule 22, take a decision regarding the selection of the site for a new town. Only thereafter further action could be taken by the State for constituting a Special Agency for the planning and development of the new town under Section 31 of the Act and which Agency could take further action for the said purpose as was considered necessary. The High Court recorded its findings as under:-

(2) A New Town Planning and Development Authority constituted under sub-section (1), shall be a body corporate as well as local authority by the name aforesaid having perpetual succession and a common seal, with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable and to contract, and by the said name sue and be sued.

36. The Board, before notifying a planning area under Section 56(5) by Notification in the Official Gazette, must consider the objections and suggestions received by it in response to the Notification issued by it under Section 56(1) declaring its intention to specify any area as a planning area.

37. None of the other authorities constituted under Sections 28, 29 and 31 are vested with power to declare a planning area by Notification in the Official Gazette, but they may be authorized to function as a Planning Agency for the planning and development of the planning area by drawing up Schemes, Master Plans, Regional Plans and other documents.

41. The High Court has found that the acquisition was sought to be made in breach of the provisions of the Periphery Act of 1952. In view of the findings recorded by us earlier in this judgment, it is not necessary to go into this question and we, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion in the matter. May be, in an appropriate case the question may have to be decided.

43. Special Leave Petition (C) No.7946 of 2002 is dismissed. The High Court shall now proceed to dispose of the writ petition in accordance with law.

45. In the result, we find no merit in the appeals and they are accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.