Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2057 (PNJ)

Sampuran Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh

2006-05-11

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, MAHESH GROVER

body2006
JUDGMENT MAHESH GROVER, J. 1. This order will dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 19916, 19965, 19966 of 2004 and 1527, 7051, 8190 and 2005 as they involve common questions of law and facts. 2. The petitioners have laid a challenge to the acquisition proceedings resorted to by the Union Territory, Chandigarh. The land was sought to be acquired for a pubic purpose, namely, “for the development of complex for important projects and allied purposes i.e. Chandigarh Science. Park and institutional area and for regulated and planned development under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952” in village Sarangpur, H.B. No. 347 and in village Lahore H.B. No. 348, Union Territory, Chandigarh. 3. Three separate notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Act seeking to acquire different chunks of land. Two of them were issued on 20.11.2003. The third notification is purported to have been issued on 25.7.2005. However, we are concerned with the notifications which have been issued on 20.11.2003 and which are subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petitions. After calling for the objections under Section 5-A of the Act and hearing them, the respondents issued notification under Section 6 of the Act on 18.11.2004. 4. The principal ground on which the acquisition proceedings are sought to be challenged is that the respondents have not considered their objections separately and that there was discrimination on the part of the respondents when they resorted to release of the land of a select few while seeking to acquire the land of the petitioners. It was also pleaded that the respondents are trying to use the land for some other purpose. 5. In their written statement, the respondents have averred that the acquisition was perfectly in accordance with law and that the entire procedure as contemplated under the Act has been followed. They have pleaded that neither there was any discrimination nor was there any arbitrariness in releasing the land of some of the landowners. The respondents contended that it was strictly in accordance with the scheme of acquisition that some of the land was released, whereas the land of the petitioners could not be released as the same was important and relevant to the integrated planning under the acquisition scheme. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 7. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 7. The land in question has been acquired by the respondents for a public purpose as mentioned hereinabove. The State is, therefore, the best judge to assess its need when it resorts to acquisition. The duty of the Court is to ensure that the acquisition is not a result of colourable exercise of power. However, in that process, it can not substitute its opinion regarding the requirement of the State as far as the acquisition is concerned. The authority which is to carry out the planned development after setting out a purpose is in the best position to judge as to which land can be exempted from acquisition without jeopardizing the scheme itself. 8. It is also the requirement of law that after the State shows its intent to acquire some land, objections under Section 5-A of the Act are invited. It is at that point of time when the State has to apply its mind as to which land is to be released; if at all, and which land is to be acquired. The decision to release some land must be a result of subjective satisfaction and application of mind. Every action of release of land is bound to attract an allegation that there has been a method of pick and choose and thereby inject an attitude of intended arbitrariness. It is at this juncture that the Courts have to oversee that the element of arbitrariness and discrimination is not perpetrated on the person whose land/properties have been subjected to acquisition. 9. Shri Sanjeev Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to the map which has been attached as Annexure R1 with the written statement and demonstrated therefrom the area where the houses/constructions of the petitioners exist. A perusal of the map Annexure R1 shows that the area belonging to the petitioners are small scattered areas which disturb the very basis of the contiguous and integrated scheme for development. If these areas are left out, then they would stick out like “sore- thumbs” in an otherwise developed area, which may result after the purpose of acquisition is completed. The map further shows that the areas which have been left out are existing on one side and do not seemingly hamper the project of the respondents. 10. If these areas are left out, then they would stick out like “sore- thumbs” in an otherwise developed area, which may result after the purpose of acquisition is completed. The map further shows that the areas which have been left out are existing on one side and do not seemingly hamper the project of the respondents. 10. Apart from the above, Shri Sharma also submitted that the areas which were thickly populated have also been left out from acquisition for the simple reason that economics of the cost of acquisition did not favour such acquisition. He contended that the action of the respondents cannot be faulted and the writ petition be dismissed. In support of his submission, he has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported as (2005) 9 S.C.C. 164 - Anand Bottons Ltd. Versus State of Haryana and others , wherein it was held as under :- “.... The authority, which has to carry out the planned development of the industrial estate, is in the best position to judge as to which land can be exempted from the acquisition without jeopardizing the development scheme. It is not possible for the court to sit in appeal over the exercise of such satisfaction by the authority vested with the task of implementing the development plan.” 11. We are in full agreement with the learned counsel for the respondents. The State can always exercise its absolute power to acquire land, provided a public purpose exists and it is not necessary that it should succumb to the wishes or willingness of the owner or person interested in the land. The only exception can be when mala fide is shown and then the Courts are bound to protect the individuals from being the victims of such arbitrariness. 12. In the instant case, no such material has been brought on the record to show that there was any mala fide on the part of the respondents. The petitioners have also not been able to show any arbitrariness or discrimination. 13. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondents in acquiring the land of the petitioners. Resultantly, the writ petitions are dismissed. 14. The petitioners have also not been able to show any arbitrariness or discrimination. 13. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondents in acquiring the land of the petitioners. Resultantly, the writ petitions are dismissed. 14. At this stage, Shri Ashish Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioners made an impassioned plea that the petitioners will be uprooted from their houses as the acquisition is complete and that the Administration is just waiting to take over the possession of their land. 15. In view of the fact that there are existing houses on the land in question, we direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners till 31.5.2006 so as to enable them to make alternate arrangements. No further orders were required in the petitions and the same stand dismissed as aforesaid.