Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2597 (PNJ)

Karnail Singh, Lambardar v. State of Punjab

2010-09-09

RAM CHAND GUPTA, SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2010
JUDGMENT Mr. Satish Kumar Mittal , J.:- Petitioners No.1 to 13, residents of village Issapur, and the Gram Panchayat, Village Issapur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, who is petitioner No.14, have filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 20.11.2009 (Annexure P-32), passed by the State of Punjab, whereby their prayer for releasing the land under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on the ground that the same is not needed for the purpose, for which it was acquired, has been rejected. The said order was passed in view of the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 6.1.2009 (Annexure P-24) passed in the earlier writ petition (CWP No. 7730 of 2008), filed by the petitioners, whereby the Government was directed to consider and decide the issue as to whether the Government wishes to withdraw from the acquisition of the land in question. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the notifications dated 2.12.1988 (Annexure P-7) and 5.12.1988 (Annexure P-8), issued under Section 4 and 6, respectively, of the Act, as well as the Award dated 4.1.1990 (Annexure P-11). 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the impugned order, the notifications and the Award. 3. Undisputedly, in the present case, vide notification dated 5.12.1988 (Annexure P-8), issued under Section 6 read with Section 17 (1) of the Act, by invoking the urgency provisions, 9.31 acres of land, falling within the revenue estate of village Issapur, including the land of the petitioners, was acquired by the State Government for construction of Bassi Distributory of Dashmesh Canal Project, which was a link canal to the main Satluj Yamuna Link Canal (SYL). Thereafter, on 4.1.1990, the Award (Annexure P-11) was passed. It is also admitted position that against the said Award, the petitioners sought references under Section 18 of the Act, though lateron, with the consent of both the parties, those references were returned back to the Land Acquisition Collector on the plea that the dispute with regard to alignment of the distributory was pending. It is also undisputed position that when the land was acquired for the aforesaid purpose, the petitioners did not challenge the same. However, the Gram Panchayat at its own passed certain resolutions requesting the Government not to acquire the land. It is also undisputed position that when the land was acquired for the aforesaid purpose, the petitioners did not challenge the same. However, the Gram Panchayat at its own passed certain resolutions requesting the Government not to acquire the land. After the passing of the Award dated 4.1.1990, possession of the acquired land was taken and it is also conceded position that on the acquired land, some constructions in the shape of Health Center, Community Center and Bus Stand were raised by the State Government. Earlier, the mutation of the acquired land was not got entered by the Government and it was only in the year 2007 that the Government had got entered the mutation with regard to the acquired land. Thereafter, the petitioners again started pressing for release of the land on the ground that the same is not needed for the purpose, for which it was acquired. On a writ petition (CWP No. 7730 of 2008), filed by them, vide order dated 6.1.2009, a direction was issued to the State Government to consider and decide the issue as to whether the Government wishes to withdraw from the acquisition of the land in question or the acquired land is needed for the public purpose. In view of the said direction, the impugned order dated 20.11.2009 (Annexure P-32) was passed, whereby after considering the prayer of the petitioners and the entire issue, the State Government has declined to release the land on the ground that it is very much needed for the purpose, for which it was acquired. It has been mentioned that earlier, prayer of the villagers for releasing the land was considered on 18.7.2006 and it was decided that the land was acquired for construction of Bassi Distributory, which is part of the Dashmesh Canal Project, regarding which award was passed and after completing all the procedural formalities, possession of the land was taken and the said land cannot be released from acquisition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that since the respondent-State itself had terminated the water agreement with the State of Haryana by passing the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004, therefore, the whole exercise of constructing distributory to the main SYL Canal or to Dashmesh Canal Project has lost its significance and the acquired land is not required for the said purpose. Thus, the State Government was not justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for release of the land under Section 48 of the Act. 5. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not find any force in the same. The State Government had acquired the land long back in the year 1988 by following the procedure, as laid down under the Act. The Award was passed on 4.1.1990 and possession of the land was also taken. At that time, the petitioners did not challenge the acquisition. Rather, they had accepted the acquisition, therefore, they sought reference for enhancement of compensation. The mutation of the land has also been sanctioned in favour of the State Government. Even on some part of the land, constructions in the shape of Health Center, Community Center and Bus Stand have been raised, as alleged by the petitioners. In view of these facts, under Section 16 of the Act, the acquired land absolutely vests in the Government, free from all encumbrances. Once the acquired land absolutely vests in the Government, it is for the State Government to use the land for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. The landowner has no legal right to get the land released on the ground that the land was not utilised for the purpose, for which it was acquired. Under Section 48 of the Act, where the acquisition proceedings have not been finalised and possession of the land has not been taken, the State Government can withdraw from acquisition. In the instant case, it has been categorically stated in the impugned order that possession of the acquired land was taken after completing all the formalities. This fact is further established from the averments made by the petitioners themselves to the effect that the State Government has raised certain constructions on the acquired land. The fact as to whether a particular piece of land is to be used for a particular purpose or not, is always the satisfaction of the State Government. After the acquisition, it is for the State Government to withdraw from the acquisition or not to withdraw. It is again an administrative decision, to be taken by the Government. The fact as to whether a particular piece of land is to be used for a particular purpose or not, is always the satisfaction of the State Government. After the acquisition, it is for the State Government to withdraw from the acquisition or not to withdraw. It is again an administrative decision, to be taken by the Government. Once the Government rejected the representation filed by the petitioners while holding that the acquired land is needed for the purpose for which it was acquired, then in our opinion, this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction cannot sit over the said decision of the Government, which clearly indicates that the land is still required for the public purpose and direct the Government to release the part of the acquired land. 6. Regarding the challenge to acquisition, since possession of the land was taken long back, therefore, now at this stage acquisition cannot be quashed on the ground that it is not needed for the public purpose. 7. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the instant petition is without any merit and there is no illegality in the impugned order. Dismissed —————