TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUDGMENT B.P. Singh, J. 1. In this batch of appeals the common Judgments and Orders of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated April 28, 2003 disposing of the Writ Petitions has been assailed. In the Writ Petitions before the High Court, the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') by issuance of Notifications by the Chandigarh Administration under Section 4 thereof had been challenged which has been rejected by the High Court by its impugned judgment and order. The lands were sought to be acquired for Scheme Nos.2 and 3 and were spread over eleven Pockets within the Notified Area of Mani Majra, which has since vested in the Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh. Pockets 1 to 6 related to Scheme No. 2, while Pockets 9 to 11 related to Scheme No. 3. 2. It is not disputed that so far as Pocket Nos.1 to 6 are concerned, the Notifications under Section 4 of the Act were issued on different dates between May 25, 1989 and October 12, 1989. It is also not disputed that several awards have been made and many of the land owners have received the compensation awarded, but the appellants herein have challenged the acquisition proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government may, at the request of the committee, proceed to acquire it under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and on payment by the committee of the compensation awarded under that Act, and of any other charges incurred in acquiring the land, the land shall vest in the committee. Explanation. - When any land is required for a new street or for the improvement of an existing street, the committee may proceed to acquire, in addition to the land to be occupied by the street, the land necessary for the sites of the buildings to be erected on both sides of the street and such land shall be deemed to be required for the purposes of this Act. 5. It was, therefore, argued before the High Court that the municipal fund could be utilized only for the purposes contemplated by Section 52 of the Municipal Act of 1911. Since the Scheme was not a building scheme under Section 192 of the Act of 1911, the Mani Majra Notified Area could not be burdened with the cost of acquisition of land. 6. On the contrary, the respondents submitted that the Scheme in question was not a 'building scheme' under Section 192 of the Act of 1911. It was a development scheme with a vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ramed as per the provisions of Section 192 of the Punjab Act, but the respondents have categorically stated that the scheme for which the land had been acquired, is not a scheme within the meaning of Section 192 of the Punjab Act and the land is being acquired under the Act for the purpose of a Development Scheme for providing facilities to the residents of 'the area'. We are further of the opinion that Section 58 of the Punjab Act specifically provides that the State Government which in this case would be the Union Territory Administration, is fully competent to acquire land for the public purposes. In the light of these averments, the judgments cited by the learned Counsel, in fact, have no bearing in the case in hand. 9. The core issue therefore is whether the acquisition is for a building scheme as contemplated under Section 192 of the Act of 1911, or whether it is only a development plan for providing better facilities to the inhabitants of the area by way of residential, commercial and medical facilities which are within the contemplation of Section 52(2)(c) of the Act of 1911. 10. This takes us to Section 192 of the Act of 1911, the relevant part whereof is r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h a scheme was validly framed after following the prescribed procedure, and was duly sanctioned by the State Government. But it appears to us that the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that this was not a building scheme under Section 192, but merely a development plan to provide facilities to the public, such as those within the contemplation of Section 52(2)(c) of the Act of 1911, to which the municipal fund could be applied. It was, therefore, not required to follow the procedure under Section 192 of the Act of 1911. 12. The relevant part of Section 52 reads as follows: 52. . . (1). . . (2) Subject to the charges specified in sub- section (1) and to such rules as the [State] Government may make with respect to the priority to be given to the several duties of the committee, the municipal fund shall be applicable to the payment in whole or in part, of the charges and expenses incidental to the following matters within the municipality, and with the sanction of the [State Government] outside the municipality, namely: . . . (c) the construction, establishment and maintenance of schools, hospitals and dispensaries, and other institutions for the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been granted. We find no substance in the argument in view of our finding that the development work undertaken by the Notified Area Committee could be undertaken by it under the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act and, therefore, the permission granted under the Punjab Periphery Act, 1952 is not tainted with illegality. 15. It was argued in Civil Appeal Nos. 2558-2559 of 2004 arising out of Writ Petition ) No. 3125 of 1990 that the permission granted on January 2, 1989 under Section 11 of the Punjab Periphery Act, 1952 referred to only Pockets I to III and there was no reference to Pocket No. 5. Therefore, so far as the lands falling in Pocket No. 5 are concerned, there was no valid permission to raise the impugned structures. This point does not appear to have been raised before the High Court. However, there is material on record to support the contention of respondents that originally the area was divided into three pockets, namely Pocket numbers I, II and III. It was only later that three Pockets were converted into six Pockets. In this connection we may refer to the affidavit filed before this Court by the Land Acquisition Collector wherein it was stated that Pocket ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in two daily newspapers circulating in the area. The case of the respondents is that the Notification was given due publicity in the locality by beat of drums on June 3 and June 4, 1989. The assertion of the respondents was challenged by the appellants and C.M. No. 4235 filed on March 30, 1990 with the prayer that the respondents be directed to produce the entire record, specially the documents evidencing the publicity by beat of drums in the locality. However, the said application was ordered to be heard with the main case which unfortunately came up for hearing many years later in the year 2003. 17. An affidavit of the Land Acquisition Officer dated March 23, 2003 was filed before the High Court wherein it was admitted that the original record pertaining to the acquisition of land in various pockets of the revenue estate of Mani Majra was not traceable and an inquiry had been initiated in the matter. Some officials of the Administration as well as the Municipal Corporation had been suspended. It was explained that when an application was filed for early hearing of the writ petitions and a search was made for the original record pertaining to the acquisition of lands in variou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l hearing was given by him to the interested persons and proper procedure as envisaged in the Land Acquisition Act was followed is annexed as Annexure 'IV'. 9. That the Patwari, Notified Area, Mani Majra at the relevant time namely Shri Som Nath (since retired) was also contacted. He has revealed that he was posted as Patwari, Notified Area Committee, Mani Majra from July 1989 till November, 1993. During this period, notifications under section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act pertaining to Pockets No. 1-6 and Pocket No. 9-11 were issued. The record pertaining to the publication (original information) and entries in the Rapat Roznamchas remains with the revenue Patwari. 10. That as submitted above, the only record pertaining to this acquisition is in the shape of file mentioned above. The report dated 15.1.1990 clearly shows that the objections were heard by the then Land Acquisition Officer and opportunity of personal hearing was given on 9.1.1990. The original objections filed by the Petitioner is also on the record of this file at page No. 272-285. The affidavit of Shri D.V. Bhatia also shows that an opportunity of personal hearing had been given to the Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requirement of the publication by beat of drum. The reliance of the counsel for the petitioners on the provisions of Section 4 of 1894 Act that the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance or said notification to be given at the convenient places of the locality is not tenable. The Collector contemplated under Section 9 of 1894 Act is one defined under Section 3(c) of 1894 Act which means that the Collector of the District and includes the Deputy Commissioner and any officer specially appointed by the Appropriate Government to perform the functions of the Collector under the said Act. The Collector is the agent of the State Government competent to acquire land for the State Government. One or other official can cause the publication of the substance of the notification in the locality. It is not necessary that the Collector has to personally authorise the publication by beat of drum. It is the publication of the substance in the locality which is a material factor so as to invite the attention of the interested persons towards the intention of the Government to acquire the land. No rule, provision or instructions were brought to our notice that the procedure of be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act and/or failure to give an opportunity to the parties who had filed objections to represent their cases before the competent authority. The High Court has considered in detail the facts of each case. We have also heard the parties at length only to satisfy ourselves about the reasonableness of the findings of fact recorded by the High Court on consideration of the evidence on record. We find ourselves in agreement with the High Court that the grounds urged on behalf of the appellants are untenable. The High Court has noticed the fact that the material on record did indicate that in many cases notices were given to the parties concerned, objections were filed and heard and awards declared. The report of the Land Acquisition Collector in some cases is also on record. The objections filed by some of the appellants were also before the High Court. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal appearing on behalf of the Union Territory of Chandigarh and the Notified Area Committee also took us to the evidence on record and we are satisfied that this is not a case which requires interference by this Court on a pure question of fact. The High Court has elab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was in these circumstances that those Khasra Numbers were kept out of acquisition. 25. We find that the respondents had good reasons for not acquiring lands over which there stood permanent structures which had been raised after getting building plans sanctioned from the concerned authority. The appellant has no where averred that he had raised the structure after getting a building plan duly sanctioned by the concerned authority. The mere fact that the shop was given a number is not at all relevant in the facts of the case. 26. Learned Counsel then argued that some lands which had been earlier notified for acquisition have been released by the Government as late as on 9th January, 2004 exercising its powers under Section 48 of the Act. This fact by itself does not justify the conclusion that there was discrimination in the matter of acquisition of land. It appears from the Notification produced before us that some of the lands in Darshani Bagh had to be released in the peculiar facts of the case. It appears that the Notification for acquisition had been earlier quashed by the High Court on August 11, 1997 but on a review petition being filed by the Chandigarh Administratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
