Daljit Singh vs State of Punjab

Surya Kant, J.—The petitioners No. 1 and 2, who are father and daughter respectively, along with petitioner No. 3 seek quashing of the notification dated 26th March, 1992 issued u/s 4 read with Section 17 as also the notification dated 19th May, 1992 issued u/s 6 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the extent of acquisition of their land comprising Khasra Nos. 16, 17 and 25 situated in the revenue estate of village Rakh Sikargarh, Tehsil & District Amritsar which has been acquired for the public purpose of "construction of building for establishment of Government Polytechnic Institute for Women...." The petitioners purchased the above mentioned land vide registered Sale Deed dated 04th January, 1990 statedly for the construction of a house though admittedly it was an agricultural land. The petitioners claim to have constructed three Bedrooms, One Drawing and Dining room, One Kitchen, One Toilet and One Study Room. It is further averred that the remaining plot was kept ''reserved'' for the construction of a Clinic as petitioner No. 2 was pursuing the B.A.M.S. Course. The land is located on the main Amritsar-Majitha road and is surrounded by fully developed residential and commercial establishments within Municipal limits of Amritsar City.

The petitioners impugn the acquisition of their land primarily on two counts. Firstly, it is averred that there was no occasion to invoke urgency clause u/s 17 and they should have been given an opportunity to submit objections u/s 5A of the Act. Secondly, the acquired land is surrounded by residential and commercial establishments and also it being a flood-prone area is unsuitable for setting up a Polytechnic Institute. A plea of discrimination alleging that the construction raised in Khasra No. 24, 24/4 and 24/7 has been left untouched on pick and choose basis, has also been raised.

The State of Punjab and other official respondents have filed their written statement inter-alia maintaining that the land measuring 156 kanals 15 marlas of village Rakh Sikargarh falling within the Municipal Corporation limits [including of petitioners No. 1 and 2] has been acquired as it was an agricultural vacant land. It is specifically averred that there was no construction raised by the petitioners at the time of issue of Section 4 notification. The locusstandi of petitioner No. 3 has been questioned as she is neither cosharer nor an independent owner of any part of the acquired land. It has been further averred that "there was no structure in Khasra No. 19-16-17-25 at the time of issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. There is no construction except only boundary walls with mud pucca bricks on one side only". As regard to the invoking of power u/s 17, the respondents have averred as follows:-

That the contents of this para are wrong and hence denied. The urgency provision u/s 17 of the Land Acquisition Act have been invoked to meet with the time bound construction schedule of the building of an Educational Institution. The provisions of Section 5A have been rightly dispensed with. The purpose for which the land has been acquired is covered in Section 17 of the land Acquisition Act [Amendment applicable in Punjab].

[11]. That as already stated urgency provisions are invoked to acquire the land for Government Polytechnic for Women, Amritsar to meet the time bound construction schedule of the building and the construction work is already in progress. It has come up to plinth level as so far its Hostel Block, Staff Quarters and Administrative block is concerned till the date of filing this written statement".

[Emphasis applied]

The other admitted fact on record is that though this Court had stayed dispossession of the petitioners, the remaining acquired land was physically taken over by the State Government and a Government Polytechnic for Women has actually been set up at the site. It further appears that pursuant to the order dated 20th November, 2008, the Director, Technical Education, Punjab, appeared before this Court and explained the genuine necessity of the land under petitioners'' possession as due to the interim stay, a part of the Women''s Hostel could not be completed. Thereafter, the Director Technical Education, was asked on 17th December, 2008 to explore whether a plot measuring One Kanal or so out of Khasra No. 36 could be released in favour of the petitioners "without compromising with the present requirement or future expansion of the Institution". It was finally on 22nd October, 2013 that the learned State Counsel on the basis of the written instructions informed that to cater to the alleged residential need of the petitioners, the State Government was willing to release One Kanal land out of Khasra No. 25. Since the above stated offer was not acceptable to the petitioners, the case was heard on merits.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, it appears that the following two questions arise for determination:-

[i] Whether the acquisition of land is for a bona-fide public purpose?

[ii] If yes, whether it was permissible for the respondents to invoke urgency powers u/s 17 of the Act?

As regard to Question No. [i], there is no gain saying that establishment of a Government Polytechnic Institute exclusively for the Women to impart education in Engineering is a laudable object and a substantial part of the acquired land having been utilised for such public purpose, the petitioners can not be heard to question the bona-fide of the public purpose.

Adverting to issue No. [ii], it appears necessary to take judicial notice of the fact that the State of Punjab remained in turmoil for over a decade in the 1980s when hundreds and hundreds of innocent people were killed; there was a spade of human right violations; there were hundreds of prima-facie fake encounters and ambushes; all democratic institutions stood destroyed; there was near to collapse of the Civic Administration and a completely paralysed common-man''s life. The ''youth'' of the State was the worst affected as ''victim'' and ''victimiser'' both.

The year 1990 was the beginning of the decade of hope when efforts to restore peace and harmony started sharing visible signs albeit here and there. There was a dire need to reach out to people in general and particularly the youth to bring them in the mainstream by involving them in multifarious positive activities and restoring their faith in the civilised system thereby restoring the Rule of Law and a democratic forum of Governance.

Amritsar and other border areas were the worst affected. The priority of the State to bring the youth of these areas on the right path and involve them in creative activities deserves applaud. It was in that scenario that the State Government vide Memo dated 12th April, 1991 decided to set up a Government Polytechnic for Women in Amritsar "under the World-Bank Assistance Project". On 4th June, 1991 the State Government constituted a Site Selection Committee as well as Negotiation Committee. Various sites were inspected and on 19th August, 1991 the subject site was chosen. The Collector, Amritsar certified that the proposed site was free from any type of construction and was suitable for construction of the Women Polytechnic. As the funds were sanctioned under the World Bank Project which were to be utilised in a time-bound manner, the draft notification sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar on 10th March, 1992 came to be published in the Official Gazette on 26th March, 1992. The ground of urgency for invoking Section 17 finds mention in the letter of the Deputy Commissioner sent to the State Government on 10th March, 1992 which says as follows:-

The draft notification in quadruplicate both u/s. 4 & 6 of the L.A. Act received from the Director, Tech. Edu. And Indl. Trg., Pb. Chandigarh are recommended and forwarded for its simultaneous publication in Punjab Govt. Gazette, the reasons being that of the funds provided for the project following the acquisition of land has been sanctioned by the World Bank and is timebound utilisation thereof. The speeding up of this acquisition process is immediately necessitated in the interest of industrial Development of the State which is one of the foremost requisite...."

[Emphasis applied].

Setting up of a Women''s Institute at public expenses, in our considered view, must be viewed differently as compared to establishment of any other Government Institution. Several such like professional Institutes were needed badly in the State of Punjab to involve the youth who were going astray after being misled by the anti-national elements. The setting-up of an exclusive Institution for Women is otherwise in-consonance with our Constitutional commitment of Women empowerment. That the Women deserve special treatment for conferment of equality which would otherwise remain rhetoric and not the reality, Article 15[3] confers a special status on women. For giving effect to this fundamental right, formulated as an exception, Article 39[a] exhorts the State to formulate their policies towards securing equality amongst men and women. Unless the women are imparted education, professional or otherwise, and are given opportunities out-of-turn, the above-noticed salutary mandate of the Constitution can not be achieved.

In the instant case the record reveals that the World Bank had released special financial package for different projects which included a special project of setting-up a Women Polytechnic at Amritsar. It is well known that the financial assistance from Institutions like World Bank is result oriented and only if the actual expenditure is incurred on the approved project that the aid and assistance is released. The anxiety of the authorities, therefore, to acquire the land, raise the construction and complete the project to honour their commitment before the World Bank can not be faulted with.

It is too late to go into the wisdom of invoking urgency clause as the Institution has already been set up and the public purpose stands achieved, though a part of the project, we are told the Girls Hostel, is still incomplete due to the interim stay granted to the petitioners. Pertinently, all other owners have accepted the public purpose and the consequential acquisition of their land, except the petitioners who had perhaps for speculative gains purchased the land hardly a year before its acquisition.

The petitioners are admittedly residents of Amritsar. It is not their case that they are residing in a tenanted premises. The plea that the land was purchased for a residential house, thus, appears to be an after-thought. Be that as it may, one does not need land in acres for constructing a residential house. The petitioners themselves at one stage were willing before this Court to accept a plot of One Kanal i.e., 500 square yards, though out of a particular Khasra Number. The said Khasra Number, if partially released would have disturbed the contiguity of the project, hence the Authorities expressed their inability, though offered to release land out of Khasra No. 25.

Since the land was acquired for a laudable public project; to honour the commitment before the World Bank and is a salutary step towards a Constitutional goal, we are of the considered view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the denial of audi-alteram-partem, namely, right to submit objections u/s 5A to the petitioners, particularly when none of the other landowners made such a hue and cry, was fully justified. The distinct features and the prevailing circumstances which can not even be visualised in introspection, distinguish this case from the principles reiterated and explained by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Bharat Sewak Samaj Vs. LT. Governor and Others,

For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, in view of the commitment made before this Court by them, the respondents are directed to release a plot measuring 500 square yards in favour of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 out of Khasra No. 25 in such a manner that it must have an access to the road to which the said Khasra Number is abutting as per the site plan [Annexure P-2], The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. The petitioners shall not be entitled to compensation for the released piece of land. Disposed of. Dasti.