Bachittar Singh vs State of Punjab

V.K. Jhanji, J.

Land belonging to the petitioners was acquired by the State Government under the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 2.5.1977 whereas notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 25.10.1977. Petitioners were issued notice under Section 9 of the Act on 26.12.1977. Despite notifications under Sections 4 and 6 and 6 of the Act as also issuance of notice under Section 9 of the Act, no award was given by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short the Collector) and that led to the filing of the petition in the year 1982. On September 13, 1982, a division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition in view of Full Bench judgment of this court in Radhey Sham Gupta v. State of Haryana and others, 1984 R.R.R. 493, (Civil Writ Petition No. 3755 of 1981 decided on 4.8.1982). Consequently, notification under Sections 4 and 6 and notices so far as the they relate to the petitioners, were quashed. State of Haryana filed S.L.P.(C) No. 2831 of 1983 in the Supreme Court. The judgment of the High Court was set aside by the Supreme Court as decision in Radhey Sham Gupta''s case (supra) had been disapproved in several cases. However, the matter was remanded to the High Court as the counsel for the petitioner before the Supreme Court stated that there are other several important grounds to support the prayer for quashing the land acquisition proceedings. It was also claimed that the respondents are also entitled to rely on certain relevant subsequent events.

Petitioners have filed amended writ petition and in paragraph 8 thereof have taken fresh grounds and have given details of subsequent events. According to the petitioners, land which was acquired at the time of acquisition, was agricultural but now has been put into residential use. Houses have already been constructed. Some land has been brought under orchard. It has been stated that at the time when the land was acquired price of the land was nearly Rs. 30,000/ per acre but now it is more than Rs. 60,000/ per acre. Further, according to the petitioners, no Award till date has been given. The land which was acquired at the time of the acquisition was outside the municipal limits but now the same has come within municipal limits of Abohar. It has also been averred in the petition that possession continues to be with the petitioners and other landowners.

The matter was remanded by Supreme Court on 22.2.1991. Amended writ petition was filed on 8.1.1992. Case is on the regular list for quite sometime but the State has not cared to file any reply to the averments made in the amended writ petition.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that the notice under Section 9 of the Act issued to the petitioners cannot be sustained in view of the provision of Section 11A of the Act which reads thus :

"11A. Period within which an award shall be made :

The Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of land shall lapse :

Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement."

As already noticed, notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were issued in the year 1977 but no Award till date has been given by the Collector. According to the proviso to Section 11A of the Act, if the declaration had been published before the commencement of the Act, Award was to be given within two years from the commencement of the Act. In the present case, no award has been given within two years of the coming into force of the amended Act and, therefore, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of land shall lapse.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and notice issued under Section 9 of the Act qua the petitioners are quashed. No costs.