ANGRUP THAKAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB — 1967 DIGILAW 103 (DEL)

S. K. Kapur, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners owned 84 big has 11biswas of land in village Dobhi. A notification under section 4 of tie Land Acquisition Act was issued on January 22, 1965, with respect to the aforesaid land. In the said notice it was recited that "land is likely to be required to be taken by Govenment at the public expenses for a public purpose namely for the construction of building and doing research work on vegetables". This notification was followed by notification dated October 15, 1965, under section 6 of the said Act. The relevant part of which reads : "whereas the Governor of Punjab is satisfied that land specified below is needed by the Government at public expense for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of building and doing research work on vegetables at the Indian Agriculture Research Institute, Vegetable Breeding Sub-Station. . . ". ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by this acquisition, the land owners-petitioners filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. ( 3 ) THE first objection raised by Mr. Sachar on behalf of the petitioners is that they were not heard on their objections filed under section 5-A of the said Act. Mr. Sachar relied on paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 19, 21 and 24 of his petition and the replies thereto in the writtenstatement filed on behalf of the first respondent. In these paragraphs it has been specifically alleged that no date had been fixed by the Collector for hearing and disposing of the objections of the petitioners under section 5-A. Reply to the paragraphs 10 to 12 is paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 for respondent No. 2". In reply to paragraph 19, there is a general and vague statement that conditions precedent to the issue of notification under section 6 were complied with. However, in paragraph 24 of the written-statement one finds for the first time a positive statement that "however, respondent No. 2 heard the objections of the petitioners on April, 19)35. " I would like to point out that this is an extremely unsatisfactory way of replying to the allegations made in the petition. It is incumbent on the respondents to deal with each and every paragraph in a proper manner. In the affidavit accompanying the written-statement paragraph 24 has been affirmed by the deponent as true to his knowledge. " I would like to point out that this is an extremely unsatisfactory way of replying to the allegations made in the petition. It is incumbent on the respondents to deal with each and every paragraph in a proper manner. In the affidavit accompanying the written-statement paragraph 24 has been affirmed by the deponent as true to his knowledge. It follows that the deponent had information regarding the hearing of the objections by the second respondent. In these circumstances, it was hardly proper for him to state in reply to paragraphs 10 to 12 of the petition that it was for respondent No. 2 to deal with the matter. ( 4 ) THE petition was once argued on May 18, 1967. It was adjourned because of uncertaintity about the service of notice on the second respondent. Mr. Prithvi Raj, However, accepted notice for the second respondent also on that day. Still no reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. This necessitated my going into the records which were made available to me by the learned counsel for the respondents. I find from these records that a notice fixing April 12, 1965, for hearing objections under section 5-A was sent and received by the petitioners. The petitioners appeared before the Collector on the date and made a joint statement which is signed by them. In the said statement they reiterated their objections filed by them under section 5-A and also requested the Collector to a wait the result of their representation made against the acquisition to the Minister concerned. The petitioners do not appear to have asked for any opportunity to lead evidence or address further arguments. It must, therefore, be held that the petitioners were heard. Mr. Sachar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, referred me to certain instructions issued by the Government in the matter of disposal of objections by the Collector. One at such instructions reads "when the Colletor receives an objection he shall fix a date for hearing and give notice of the date to the objectar and to the officer of the department or t e local body on whose application the notification under section 4 has been issued. " Mr. One at such instructions reads "when the Colletor receives an objection he shall fix a date for hearing and give notice of the date to the objectar and to the officer of the department or t e local body on whose application the notification under section 4 has been issued. " Mr. Sachar argued that in this case the petitioners had specifically alleged that nu notice had been given to the officer of the department concerned and that fact has been admitted in the reply affidavit. This according to Mr. Sachar rendered the healing by the Collector improper and his report bad in law. Mr. Sachar also relied upon Lonappan v. Sub-Collector. Palghat in support ef his contention. Decision in Lonappan s case shows that in that area there was in force a stautory rule framed under section 55 of the Land Acquisition Act corresponding to the executive instruction in Punjab. The argument of Mr. Sachar, however, is backed not by statutory rule but by executive instructions and in my opinion non-observance of the same will not render the hearing improper or the report by the Collector invalid unless the requirement of such a notice can be implied from the statute. Section 5-A requires only the persons intersted in the land to be heard. Non-issue of notice to the department would, therefore, not be violative of the statutory requirement of section 5-A and the petitioner cannot raise such an objection. In any case it was open to the petitioners to request the Controller to issue notice to the department concerned. Not having done so, they cannot be permitted to make that grievance at this stage. ( 5 ) THIS takes me to the other objection of Mr. Sachar which is more formidable. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that the acquisition in this case had been made for the purpose of the Union and consequently under section 6 read with section 3 (ee) of the said Act the Union Government had to be satisfied, before making a declaration under section 6, but the notification issued under the said provision by the Governor of Punjab showed that the Central Government never applied its mind to the matter. For disposing of this argument it is necessary to read the allegations made in the petition and the reply thereto. For disposing of this argument it is necessary to read the allegations made in the petition and the reply thereto. The respondents have, in their reply, admitted that the acquisition of the land was for the purpose of the Union. In paragraph 13 of the petition it is alleged that the first petitioner representing all the petitioners met Mr. M. S. Randhawa in the Agriculture Ministry of the Government of India and then came to know that no declaration under section 6 of the Act had been issued by the Central Government. Again, in paragraph. 22 it is stated : "that the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Vegetable Breeding Sub-Station, Katrain (Kulu Valley), as already submitted, is owned and managed and run by the Government of India. Acquisition of land for the purpose of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute Vegetable Breeding Sub-Station, Katrain is obviously for the purposes of the Union and the Central Government is the appropriate Government as mentioned in section 3 (ee) of the Act. The impugned declaration under section 6 has been issued by respondent No. I, State Government and not by the Central Government. There is thus no satisfaction of the appropriate Government which is the Central Gervernment and declaration undersection 6 issued by the Punjab Government which is not the appropriate Government, is f no legal effect and the impugned declaration under section 6 is, therefore, a nullity. "in the written-statement it is not denied that the land was acquired for the purpose of the Union. The only defence put forth is that the State Government was competent to acquire land on behalf of the Government of India. Section 3 (ee) of the said Act defines the expression appropriate Government to mean in relation to acquisition of land for the purposes of the Union, the Central Government. . . . Under section 6 a declaration can be issued only after the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under section 5-A that aparticular land is needed for a public purpose. In view of the admission by the respondents that the land was acquired for the purpose of the Union, it is the Central Government that had to besatisfied before issuing the declaration. From the notification under section 6 and the written- statement it appears that the declaration was issued after satisfaction of the State Government only. In view of the admission by the respondents that the land was acquired for the purpose of the Union, it is the Central Government that had to besatisfied before issuing the declaration. From the notification under section 6 and the written- statement it appears that the declaration was issued after satisfaction of the State Government only. This might have been a done by that State Government in collaboration with Union of India. Nothing to that effect has been suggested even remotely in the counter-affidavit. It must be remembered that the individual rights under our Constitution based on the recognition of an established system and made of thought and subject to prescribed limits, immutable even against hostile legislation deserve close protection against invasion by the executive. The limited protection available to the subjects against acquisition of their property must be zealously safeguarded ; of course bearing in mind that the rights of all are always superior to the rights of any. Strict adherance to the conditions precedent to the acquisition of the property is therefore necessary. Having regard to the fact that the Central Government was never satsfied for the necessity of the acquisition of the property for the purpose of Union of India the notification under section 6 must bequashed. ( 7 ) IN the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed with costs and the notification dated October 15, 1965, made under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is hereby quashed.