Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 882 (PNJ)

Jagir Singh v. State of Punjab

2013-07-18

SURINDER GUPTA, SURYA KANT

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. Since the petitioners in CWP Nos.5388 & 5547 of 1992; 4872, 5168, 5432, 5495, 5923, 7184, 7548, 8198 & 11903 of 1994; 1353, 4470, 8540, 10893, 17121 & 13303 of 1995; 1918, 2221, 2222 of 1997 challenge the notifications dated 07.05.1991 and 18.03.1992 issued by the Government of Punjab under Section 4&6, respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, ‘the Act’), these writ petitions are being taken up together and disposed of by a common order. Vide these notifications the land of petitioners has been acquired for a public purpose, namely, setting up of Industrial Focal Point in village Dhandari Kalan, Mundian Kalan, Mundian Khurd, Bholapur and Mangli Nichi, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. 2. The petitioner-landowners aggrieved by the subject acquisition seek release of their acquired land/properties, inter alia, on the following grounds: i. most of the petitioners have constructed their houses, shops, vocational establishments and plantations, hence the acquisition of such properties would deprive them of their right to shelter and livelihood; ii. the acquired land/properties are liable to be released from acquisition in terms of the Punjab Government policy in vogue at the time of acquisition, as well as those issued subsequently; iii. the petitioners-landowners are entitled to be treated at par with the beneficiaries whose acquired land has been released/de-notified from time to time by the State Government particularly vide notifications dated 19.08.1999 and 31.12.2001; iv. after the release of different parcels of acquired land, the left out acquired land/properties cannot be utilized for public purpose for which the subject acquisition was carried out; v. the public purpose, namely, the Industrial Focal Point has already been fully developed, therefore, the unutilized properties are liable to be released; vi. the petitioners were not heard nor their objections under Section 5-A of the Act were decided; 3. Learned State counsel and the learned counsel representing PSIEC, for whom the subject land was acquired, though maintain that the acquisition was carried out for a bona fide public purpose in accordance with law and that substantial part of the acquired land has already been utilized for the said public purpose or that the remaining land could not be utilized due to interim stay orders passed by this Court, nonetheless they do not dispute the fact that the State Government at its own issued notifications dated 19.08.1999 and 31.12.2001 releasing a part of the acquired land. They are not in a position to explain whether or not the remaining unutilized acquired land is contiguous or can be utilized for the notified public purpose. 4. In all fairness, it may be pointed out that Mr. OP Goyal, senior counsel representing one of the respondent-industries (in CWP No.8198 of 1994) contends that the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief as the land was purchased by him after issuance of notification under Section 4 without filing objection under Section 5-A of the Act. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It may be true that the subject acquisition at one point of time was upheld in part by this Court vide order dated 26.08.1994 passed in CWP No.5135 of 1994 (Pawandeep Sandhu v. State of Punjab & Ors.) whereby some of the writ petitions challenging the acquisition were dismissed. It cannot, however, be overlooked that despite dismissal of those writ petitions, the State Government at its own issued notifications dated 19.08.1999 and 31.12.2001 and released a part of the acquired land. 6. It is pointed out by Mr. Hemant Sarin learned counsel that acquired land of 27 out of 31 writ-petitioners (in CWP No.5388 of 1992) has already been released and that release of land of the remaining writ petitioners (petitioners No.2 to 4 & 16) has been withheld due to some mistake on the part of the Authorities. 7. In the light of the above-noticed submissions and subsequent events, we are of the considered view that the matter with regard to retention of remaining acquired land by the State Government and/or its utilization for the notified public purpose by the respondents requires reconsideration. Suffice it would be to observe that if the remaining land is not contiguous and/or cannot be utilized for the public purpose of industrialization due to the release orders referred to above, there appears to be no rhyme or reason for the respondents to deprive the petitioners of their land that too without achieving any public purpose. 8. Similarly, the respondents as a welfare State are obligated to take an altogether dispassionate and holistic view consistent with their policy of releasing the constructed houses/buildings/properties/ establishments/nursery etc. which in the instant cases are stated to be the only source of livelihood or social shelter for the petitioners’ families. 9. 8. Similarly, the respondents as a welfare State are obligated to take an altogether dispassionate and holistic view consistent with their policy of releasing the constructed houses/buildings/properties/ establishments/nursery etc. which in the instant cases are stated to be the only source of livelihood or social shelter for the petitioners’ families. 9. It is also pointed that PSIEC vide its lay out plan issued on 23.02.2004 has decided to utilize a part of the acquired land for residential purposes. If that is so, there appears to be some logic for the petitioners to contend that their constructed properties be exempted from acquisition as the public purpose of developing ‘Industrial Focal Point’ has already been successfully achieved. 10. For the reasons afore-stated, we dispose of these writ petitions with a direction to the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Industries to call for the records of the properties of the petitioners, give them or other affected persons an opportunity of hearing, re-determine the question of retention of left-out acquired land/properties and wherever it is found that the subject land cannot be utilized for a public purpose, release the same forthwith. 11. Appropriate speaking order with respect to individual claim of the petitioners/or other aggrieved parties be passed within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. Till then, the interim direction(s) already issued by this Court shall continue to operate. 13. Ordered accordingly. Dasti.