Ranjha Singh (Capt.) and ors. vs Union of India and ors.

J.V. Gupta, J.

This order will also dispose of C.W.P. No. 2279 of 1985 as the question involved is common in both these petition.

In order to provide for the better preservation and protection of certain portions of the territories of Punjab situate within or adjacent to the Siwalik mountain range, Act No. II of 1900 known as the Punjab Land Preservation (Chos) Act, 1900 (for short `the Act'') was enacted. Under section 3 of the Act notification dated 31.1.1985, copy Annexure P.1, was issued by the President of India. It was stated therein that :

"Whereas it appears to the President of India that the area specified in the above schedule hereinto annexed is, either subject to erosion by the removal or displacement of earth, soil, stones or other materials by the action of the wind and water or is likely to become subject to erosion and that is desirable to provide for the conservation of sub soil water and preservation of erosion in the said area."

Simultaneously, another notification, copy Annexure P.2 was issued under section 4 of the Act wherein it was stated that :

"Whereas the President of India is satisfied after due enquiry, that the regulations, restrictions and prohibition hereinafter contained are necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, the President of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the said Act is hereby pleased to prohibit the following areas for a period of 20 years with effect from the date of this notification in the area specified in the schedule annexed to this notification the said area forming part of the village in the Dasuya tehsil of the Hoshiarpur district specified in the schedule annexed to the provincial Government notification No. 43 (43) FT. III84/1310 dated 31.1.1985."

In both the petitions these two notifications have been challenged by the petitioners primarily on the ground that while issuing the said notifications there was no application of mind and the same have been issued arbitrarily affecting the rights of the petitioners and, secondly, there is no compliance of section 7 of the Act which provides for proclamation of regulations, restrictions, and prohibitions and admission of claims for compensation for rights which are restricted or extinguished. An averment to this effect was made in para 12 of the writ petition which reads as under :

"That under section 7 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 a duty is cast upon the Deputy Commissioner to issue a Public notice inviting the claim for compensation in view of the restrictions being imposed but no such notice has been issued or no compensation paid to the residents of the villages so affected. However, the notifications are being enforced and the petitioners are not allowed to carry on their occupation."

In the return filed on behalf of the State through its Deputy Secretary, Development, it is stated that the Government has issued the notification after careful consideration of all aspects of the matter. The case regarding issue of this notification was recommended by the Punjab State Sub Mountain and Kandi Area Advisory Council in a meeting held on 22.7.1976. The local M.L.As. and leading persons were the members of this committee. The demand for it came from the representatives of the local people. As regards the compliance of the provisions of section 7 of the Act it was stated in para 12 of the written statement that the same have been complied with and the public notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner on that behalf.

A rejoinder was filed on behalf of the local M.L.A. controverting the averments made in the written statement. Along with the rejoinder an affidavit of the exM.L.A. Shri Gurbachan Cheema was also filed in this behalf.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that there is nothing arbitrary in issuing the notification under sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The decision to that effect was taken as far back as 1976 in a meeting of the Punjab State Sub Mountain and Kandi Area Advisory Council, copy Annexure R. 1 though its compliance was made in the year 1985 by issuing the said notifications. From the pleadings of the parties, it could not be successfully argued that the said notifications suffer from nonapplication of mind, as contended on behalf of the petitioners.

As regards the second contention that there was no compliance of the provisions of section 7 of the Act, there seems to be some force. In the return also there is no specific averment that the provisions of section 7 of the Act were complied with nor any such copy has been placed on the record to show that the Deputy Commissioner caused any public notice of the provisions as contemplated under clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 7 of the Act. However, the said clause is independent of sections 3 and 4 and, therefore, on account of the noncompliance of the provisions of section 7 the notifications under sections 3, 4 of the Act could not be struck down. The Deputy Commissioner shall now comply with the provisions of section 7 of the Act within six months from the date of this order. At that time the Deputy Commissioner will also take into consideration the period from 1985 to 1989 for payment of compensation to the persons affected by the said notifications. The petitioners will also be entitled to costs of this petition.