Gurnam Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another

The petitioners have challenged the validity of Notification No. 7474-A 17-80/20770, dated Nov. 27, 1980 issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, (for short, the Act) in this petition under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

The Governor of Punjab acquired land measuring 141 Kanals 11 Marias and 230 Kanals 19 Marias, situated in villages Dhaliwal Dona and Mansurwal Dona, Tehsil and district Kapurthala for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of food grain godowns at Mansurwal Dona and Dhaliwal Dona. In view of the urgency of the matter, the provisions of Section 5A of the Act were dispensed with.

Indisputably the disputed land was acquired u/s 4 of the Act, vide notification January 10, 1978 followed by a declaration u/s 6 of the Act Vide notification, dated January 10, 1978. The notification was challenged in this Court and was quashed on the ground that it was not published in the manner prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. The acquisition has been challenged on twin grounds namely, (i) declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act has not been issued and (ii) there was no justification for invoking the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act and the right to file objection u/s 5A of the Act has been denied on wholly irrelevant grounds.

The declaration u/s 6 of the Act has to be published within one year from the date of publication of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act. Declaration by an appropriate Government u/s 6 of the Act is necessary before any land can be acquired for a public purpose. Declaration u/s 6 of the Act was published on the date of publication of the notification u/s 4 of the Act.

Section 5A of the Act provides that any person interested in any land which has been notified u/s 4 sub-section (1), may within thirty days after the issuance of the notification object to the acquisition of the land. The person interested has got a remedy u/s 5A of the Act of taking objection to the acqusition. The State Government can dispense with the right to file objection if it invokes its power under subsection (1) of Section 17 of the Act. Once the power is exercised, the requirement of Section 5A of the Act is abrogated. The satisfaction to invoke the emergency power has to be made by the appropriate Government acquiring the land. No material has been placed before me to justify the exercise of emergency powers under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act. There is no dispute that if the purpose for which the land is being acquired is urgent and the very purpose of the acquisition of the land will be frustrated, if the land is not urgently acquired then the said purpose is very much relevant for forming an opinion to exercise the power under subsection (4) of Section 17 of the Act. The opinion which has to be formed u/s 17(4) of the Act, therefore relates both to urgency as well as to the nature and condition of the land. The question of existence and the extent of urgency is matter for the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority, and it is not open to the Courts to examine the propriety or correctness of the satisfaction by scrutinising the same as a court sitting in appeal over it. However on the facts of the case, the invoking of the urgency power was not justified. A valuable right of the person whose land is sought to be acquired has been defeated. I am not able to sustain the acquisition.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and notification u/s 4 of the Act is quashed.

Petition allowed.