Lakhbir Singh vs State of Punjab

Surya Kant, J.—The acquisition of a strip of land measuring 8500 feet in length within the revenue estate of village Bhullar, Tehsil and District Muktsar is the bone of contention in this writ petition. The petitioners are the owners of the acquired land, Khasra numbers whereof were duly mentioned in one of the notifications, under challenge, dated 14.05.2012 (Annexure P2) issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as, the ''Act'')

The above-mentioned land was earlier acquired vide notifications dated February 18, 2010 and April 15/16, 2010 issued under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17 of the Act. The public purpose of the acquisition was "construction of drain RD 6700/R to connect it with RD 0-8500 out falling to Bhullar Field Drain". The urgency clause was invoked to justify the acquisition to resolve the problem of water logging. This Court, however, disapproved the action of invoking the urgency clause and consequently refraining the petitioners to file objections u/s 5-A of the Act. The above mentioned notifications were consequently quashed vide order dated 14.03.2011 passed in CWP No. 8129 of 2010 (Lakhbir Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others,). Liberty was, however, granted to official respondents to issue fresh notification for acquisition of the land, if need be.

It was thereafter that the impugned notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued on 14th May, 2012 (Annexure P2), followed by notification u/s 6 of the Act on 6th March, 2013.

The short question that arises for consideration is whether or not Section 4 notification dated 14th May, 2012 was published in accordance with law?

It would be beneficial, at this stage, to reproduce Section 4(1) of the Act, which reads as follows:--

"4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon.-

(1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality [is needed or] is likely to be needed for any public purpose [or for a company], a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette, [and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language], and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. [(the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification)]."

The plain language of the above provision unequivocally says that the proposal to acquire a land for any public purpose is required to be published in the official gazette "and two daily newspapers circulated in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language.

The admitted facts are that Section 4 notification in the instant case was published on 22.11.2012 in English newspaper Hindustan Times. The said notification was also got published in ''Yug Marg'' (English) and ''Aaj Samaj'' (Hindi) on the same day. It is also not in dispute that while newspaper Yug Marg is in English, Aaj Samaj is a Hindi newspaper. There can be no serious quarrel that Hindi newspaper Aaj Samaj is published from Ambala and Chandigarh and the petitioners have seriously questioned its circulation in their locality. Similarly, Yug Marg (English) newspaper has reportedly no circulation in District Muktsar.

The most relevant and important fact is that Punjabi is the State language in Punjab State and is the most spoken language in the locality, namely, District Muktsar. Section 4 notification was, admittedly, not published in any newspaper of Punjabi language, which is the only regional language of Punjab State including its District Muktsar.

The resultant effect is that the petitioners were again deprived of their valuable rights to submit objections u/s 5-A of the Act.

It is pertinent to mention here that the authorities were mindful of the fact that it was necessary to get the notification published in Punjabi language and such a recourse was duly adopted by them while publishing the Section 6 notification.

We do not want to express any views on the bona fide of the authorities as to why Section 4 notification was not got published in a newspaper of the regional language, namely, Punjabi i.e., the notified official language of Punjab State.

There is no gain saying that under the old Act of 1894, the limited right given to a land owner was to submit objections u/s 5-A, followed by the discretionary and quasi-judicial adjudication of such objections by the Land Acquisition Collector or the competent authority. The denial of such a right has been held to be a valid ground to vitiate the acquisition process in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat Vs. State of Haryana and Others,

Since due to non-publication of Section 4 notification in a newspaper of Punjabi language has resultantly denied the petitioners of their valuable rights to submit objections u/s 5-A of the Act, we are of the considered view that the impugned acquisition is vitiated by the evil of nonobservance of principles of natural justice and fair play. Consequently, Section 4 notification cannot sustain in law. As a result thereto, Section 6 notification would also follow the suit. For the reasons aforesaid, we allow this writ petition and quash the impugned notifications dated 14th May, 2012 (Annexure P2) and 6th March, 2013 (Annexure P3), however, with liberty to the official respondents to acquire the subject land in accordance with law.