Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 424 (PNJ)

Shiv Sham Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab

2012-03-05

A.N.JINDAL, HEMANT GUPTA

body2012
Mr. Hemant Gupta, J:- Challenge in the present petition is to the notification dated 18.4.2011 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'Act') and the notification dated 19.1.2012 issued under Section 6 of the Act, intending to acquire the land measuring three acres for a public purpose i.e. for establishment of modern computerized inter state check post. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that earlier a different chunk of land measuring three acres was intended to be acquired vide the notification dated 25.3.2010 (Annexure P-3). The objections filed by the land owners were recommended for rejection by the Land Acquisition Collector on 7.7.2010 (Annexure P-15) and also on 15.7.2010 (Annexure P-18) and to acquire the land notified. But no notification under Section 6 of the Act, in respect of such land intended to be acquired was published. Another notification has been published on 18.4.2011 under Section 4 of the Act, intending to acquire the land of the petitioner. The Land Acquisition Collector recommended rejection of such objections on 20.9.2011 (Annexure P-24). Thereafter, the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 19.1.2012. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgments of this Court reported as Amita Banta and another vs. State of Haryana and ors, [2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 266] : 2010(1)RCR (Civil) 412 and Harkishan vs. Union of India and ors 2011(2) RCR (Civil) 140 to contend that the notification under Section 4 of the Act could be rescinded only in terms of Section 48 of the Act. Such jurisdiction could be exercised only for cogent reasons and not for arbitrary reasons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that there is barani (uncultivable) land of the petitioner, which is located near to the land, subject matter of acquisition, should be acquired and not the cultivable land. In support of such argument, reliance is placed upon Annexure P-25, (Site Plan). 4. We find that the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is untenable. The notification under Section 48 of the Act could be issued, when the land vests with the State Government free from all encumbrances after announcing of the Award and payment of compensation. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The notification under Section 48 of the Act could be issued, when the land vests with the State Government free from all encumbrances after announcing of the Award and payment of compensation. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the notification under Section 6 of the Act was not published after the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 25.3.2010 in respect of another chunk of land. Therefore, the State Government was at liberty to abort the acquisition proceedings so initiated at any stage prior to vesting of land in it. 5. Today, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that infact, the notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 25.3.2010 has been rescinded on 5.8.2011 i.e. after publication of the later Section 4 notification. We find that even the said fact is not helpful to the arguments raised. We find that a notification under Section 4 of the Act has limited life and only permits the State Government and its officials to enter upon land for the purpose of survey. Since, notification under Section 6 of the Act has not been published, therefore, the notification rescinding the notification under Section 4 of the Act does not give rise to any right in favour of the petitioner. 6. We do not find any merit in the argument for acquisition of alternative land. Firstly, the petitioners have not offered their alternative land in the objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act. Secondly, the suggested land is located between two petrol pumps on one side of the road in the site plan (Annexure P 25), whereas the other suggested land is adjoining to a hotel. This Court does not act as a Court of appeal to return a finding that one location is more suitable than the other. 7. In view of the said fact, we do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.