Case: Surinder Singh Brar &amp; Others Vs. Union of India &amp; Others

2. Chandigarh, which is known all over the world as ‘the Citywas planned by French Architect Monsieur Le Corbusier. The plan prepared by Le Corbusier in collaboration with two other architects, namely, Maxwell Fry and Jane Drew envisaged division of the city of Chandigarh into residential sectors with provision for markets, educational institutions, hospitals and other facilities.3. After finalisation of the plan, the Government of Punjab acquired land of various villages for establishing Chandigarh as the new capital of the State and also constituted various committees including Land Scape Committee for implementing the plan. In the meeting of the Land Scape Committee held on 3.9.1954, the Divisional Forest Officer, Rupar (now Ropar) suggested that the land lying along the right bank of Sukhna Choe and the left bank of Patiala Ki Rao where plantation had been started by the Forest Department should be declared as reserved forest under Section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900. This was approved by the Land Scape Committee, and Chief Engineer, P.W.D. was asked to furnish the details of the area. On receipt of necessary details of khasra numbers together with the plan of the area, which included residential and commercial plots, preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was issued by the State Government on 28.2.1956 and final notification under Section 20 of that Act was issued on 3.2.1961 declaring 6724.19 acres land including about 6000 acres land which had already been utilised for construction of the first phase of Chandigarh, and about 280 acres land falling in the revenue estates of village Hallo Majra and village Dalheri Rajputan as reserved forest. The State Government also acquired hilly area measuring 6172.09 acres of Sukhna lake catchment during 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64 for carrying out soil conservation works to reduce the silt in-flow into the lake. The Forest Department acquired 536.64 acres of land of various villages along Sukhna Choe during 1963-64 to carry out soil conservation and other improvemental works.4. In 1966, the State of Punjab was reorganised under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (for short, ‘the 1966leading to the creation of the new State of Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh and transfer of some territories to State of Himachal Pradesh. With this, 6706 acres land out of 6724.19 acres land declared as reserved forest vide notification dated 3.2.1961 was transferred to the Union Territory of Chandigarh and 6127.09 acres of land constituting hilly catchment came to vest in the Central Government by virtue of Section 48(5) of the 1966 Act.5. With the passage of time, Chandigarh became an important destination for education and attracted students from all over the country. However, the employment opportunities available in the city did not match the educational facilities and this resulted in exodus of talent from Chandigarh to other cities. In the beginning of 21st Century the Chandigarh Administration took steps to provide various incentives including allotment of land to the entrepreneurs desirous of setting up industries in the field of information technology because that was expected to generate huge employment. In the first instance, the Administration decided that 111 acres land, which had been acquired between 1950 and 1977 was lying vacant, may be utilised for establishing a world class Information Technology Park in the name of Late Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi (for short, ‘the ITThis area was designated as Phase-I of the IT Park and the plots were allotted to thee ofe ofus ofd to completeed too completewill bewill ben isd ford tod tor ofg isr isd tod to. Between 2000-2004 over 267 acres land wasII of the IT Park and the plots werene industries, the details of which are given below:SEZPhase IIMain Campus Site(ins ofro Technologiess oft tos ofs ofta Indias ofys Technologies. The landro TechnologiesLtd. (30 acres),d. (2.98 acres) andd. (6 acres) was subsequently resumed because theyet up their units.8. Out of the remaining land of Phase-II, 135 acres wasto the ChandigarhHousing Board (for short, ‘thevide order dated 15.11.2005/1.12.2005 issued by the Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration for development of residential and other infrastructural facilities in the IT Park. The relevantat order are extractedThe Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh-, iser to the35 acresof land inthe Chandigarh Technology Park at Kishangarh inof the ChandigarhHousing Board, Chandigarh, on free hold basis, for the execution of the project of development and residential and other infrastructural facilities in the said park. Theof the landuse and other terms andof this land willdecided later on.2. The Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh is furtherte the Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh as the Nodal Agency for executing the aforesaid project by engaging SBI Caps as consultants who would help fine tune the financial package, as also prepare the old document.3. Broad guidelines are spelt out hereunder:-I. The whole exercise would involve a joint venture with the private party through an agreement, but without creating a joint venture company.II. No capital expenditure would be involved on the partAdministration.III. The building andll property would behe private party but all moneyed in the first instant by the Chandigarh Housing Board so that there is no under reporting of gross revenues.4. The Chandigarh Housing Board will complete the process preliminary to the inviting of bids in 12 weeks or so and complete the work construction of the building within a period of 18 months or so.Though, the ostensible object of transferringhe Board was development of residential and other infrastructural facilities in the IT Park, the real purpose was to benefit the private developers and this became evident from the decision taken in the meeting ofof the ChandigarhAdministration held on 30.3.2006. Paragraphs 1(a), 8 and 9 of theat meeting are reproducedLand Allotment.a) The entire land including land under commercialto CHB onfree hold basis, however CHB will transfer the land under commercial use on lease hold basis as per the prevalent policy of Chandigarh Administration.8.al of service/studio apartments and commercial propertyThe service/studio apartments and the commercial property shall behe developer on lease hold basis. The developer would be quoting and payingtime cost of the service / studio apartments and the commercial property. 30% share will not be taken of the subsequent revenues from these two properties.9. 10% Reservation forT. professionals.10% dwelling units may bebe purchased by I.T. companies established in Chandigarh or its employees. The detailed modalitiesed out by CHB separately.of theaforesaid decision, the Board invited bids for disposalM/s Parsvnath Developers Limited, who gave the bid of Rs.821.21 crores was allotted 123.79 acres land. However,g a glamorous advertisement with the title Parsvnath – PRIDE ASIA, Chandigarh (An Address for Aristocratic Living) to attract prospectiveof residential andcommercial properties, M/s Parsvnath Developers appears to have abandoned the project and raised certain disputes which are pending before the arbitrator.11. Soon afterst halfII to a private developer, Land Acquisition Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter described as, ‘thesent Memo No. Teh.(LA)/LAO/2005/37365 dated 15.12.2005 to the Director, Information Technology, Chandigarh with reference to some meeting held on 9.12.2005 under the Chairmanshipce Secretary-cum-Secretary Information Technology, Chandigarh and asked him to provide the drawing of 50 acres land adjoining the IT Park for facilitating its acquisition. That memo readsLand Acquisition Officer,UT, Chandigarh.ToThe Director Information Technology,Chandigarh Administration,Chandigarh.Memo No. Teh (LA)/LAO/2005/37366Dated, Chandigarh, the 15/12/05Subject : Acquisitionof land inVillage Manimajra for 2ndT. Park.This refers tothe meeting held on 09.12.2005 under the chairmanship of Sh. S.K. Sandhu, Finance Secretary/Secretary Information Technology, Chandigarh Administration, wherein it wasof landadjoining to the present I.T. Park in Kishangarh (Manimajra) for construction of 2ndT. Park.You are, therefore,be acquired so that further action to acquire the land is initiated.Sd/-Land Acquisition Officer,UT, Chandigarh.The aforesaid memo sent by the LAO was clearly misleading because in the meeting held on 9.12.2005 no decision was taken for the acquisition of 50 acres land adjoining the IT Park. This is evinced from theof themeeting held on 9.12.2005, which are reproducedthe meeting held on 9.12.2005 under the Chairmanship of Sh. S.K. Sandhu, Finance Secretary/Secretary Information Technology, Chandigarh Administration.A meeting was held under the Chairmanship of Sh. S.K. Sandhu. Finance Secretary/Secretary Information Technology to review thest & secondof Rajiv GandhiChandigarh Technology Park. The following officers were present :-1. Smt. Renu Saigal, Chief Architect2. Sh. V.K. Bhardwaj, Chief Engineer3. Sh. Wazeer Singh Goyat, Land Acquisition Officer4. Sh. Vivek Atray, Director Information Technology5. Sh. N.S. Brar, Assistant Estate Officer.6. Dr. Sanjay Tyagi, Director STPI Mohali.7. Sh. M.L Arora, Senior Town Planner8. Sh. Vaibhav Mittal, Promotion & Information Officer The following decisions were taken:-1. It was decided that the infrastructure development for the second phase consisting of 120 acres for I.T. services and 130 acres for non IT service may be taken up by the Engineering Department as per the lay out plan prepared by the Urban Planning Department.2. It was

Court's reasoning:
r, authority or jurisdiction vested in him by or under any law, rules or regulations as applicablethe Union Territoryad used theexpression ‘on theThis necessarily implies that theof ‘the appropriateconferred upon orthe Administrator by the President under Article 239(1) after 25.2.1988 were notthe Adviser. It is also appositeto note thatNotification dated 14.8.1989 was issued under Article 239(1) inll previous notifications relatinger and functions under the Act by the, even if it is assumed that vide Notification dated 25.2.1988the Administrator hadauthorised the Adviserto exercise thef ‘the appropriateunder the Act,of Notification dated 14.8.1989,the said delegationto haveceased insofar as thef ‘the appropriateunder the Actthe Rules framed thereunderis concerned andsh delegation by the Administrator, the Adviser could not have exercised thethe appropriate Government and sanctioned thethe purposes specified in Notifications dated 26.6.2006 and 2.8.2006 nor could he symbolically accept thethe LAO and record his satisfaction on theed ofthe specified public purposes.44. In viewve discussion, we hold that theor was notrd approvalon ofthe acquisition proceedingsor take decision on the reports submitted by the LAO under Section 5-A (2)the Act andrecord his satisfaction thatthe land wasthe specified public purpose.The proposition laid down in the aforementioned two judgments does not support thef the Chandigarhthat even though there is breachof Section5A read with Section 6(1), the Court cannot,on under Section 6(1), nullifys. Ast, the ratio of both the judgments is that satisfactionthe appropriate Governmentenvisaged in Section 6(1) must be preceded by considerationthe report prepared by theng theobjections filed under Section 5A ands. Thisnecessarily implies that theGovernment must objectively apply itsthe report ofthe Collector and theobjections filed by the landowners andtake a decision whether or not the land isthe specified public purpose.A mechanical endorsementthe report ofCollector cannot be a substitutent ofnd by the Government which must be clearly reflected in the record.62. In addition to what we have observed on thent violationwo sections, itte to recapitulate thens issued under6(1), which were published on 28.2.2007. A readingns makes it clear that the authoritythe same wasnt ofstatute. This could be the only reason why instead of recording satisfactionthe appropriate Governmentthat the landa public purpose,notification uses the expressionsly to. This only addsss with which the entireon has been dealt with by the highered order, we find thatthe High Courthas not examined the substantive grounds on which the appellants had challenged the acquisitiontheir land withthe required seriousness andce that the LAO had not at all considered several objections including those relating to adverse impact on the environment and ecologyea raised by the landowners and mechanically recommended the acquisitionland notified under Section4(1), that thethe LAO were not placed before the competent authority and that even the Advisor had not objectively considered thethe LAO in the lightthe objections filed under Section 5A(1) andsimply appended his signatures on the note prepared by the Secretary (Finance). This omission on