S. Ranjit Singh Bagh Singh vs The State of Punjab and Others

P.C. Pandit, J.—This is a petition by Ranjit Singh under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notification dated 10-6-60 issued u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein-after referred to as the Act) and all proceedings taken in pursuance thereof.

The Petitioner is a displaced land-holder from West Pakistan. He was allotted a garden measuring 123 kanals and 13 marlas in village Shamshabad, Tehsil Sirsa District Hissar, in lieu of his garden left in Pakistan. The State of Punjab, Respondent No. 1, propose to acquire some land in this village for remodelling scheme of Sirsa Major Distributory and the land of the Petitioner is also being taken for this purpose. A notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued on 22-4-1960 and was published in the Punjab Govern merit Gazette dated 6- 5-1960. In this notification it was stated that this land was likely to be acquired for the construction of Bhambur Minor and any person interested could within 30 days of the publication of the notification file objections in writing before the Land Acquisition Officer, Bhakra Nan-gal Project, Hissar.

The Petitioner, consequently, filed objections u/s 5-A of the Act on 31-5-1960.'' Thereupon, the Land Acquisition Officer issued notices to the Petitioner for the hearing of the objections on a number of dates, but they are still pending and the next date for the hearing of the same was fixed for 16-1-1961. In the meantime, the impugned notification dated 10-6-1960 u/s 6 of the Act was published in the Government Gazette on 17-6-1960. It was mentioned in this notification that the lands were needed by the Government at public expense for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of Bhambur Minor and under the provisions of the Act, the land Acquisition Officer, Hissar, was directed to lake orders for the acquisition of the said land.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the notification u/s 6 of the Act was illegal, because the same could not be issued before disposal of the objections filed u/s 5-A of the Act. The reply of the Respondents is that the Petitioner had not filed the objections within 30 days after the issue of the notification u/s 4 of the Act. They were barred by time and were not, therefore, taken into consideration.

The only point that arises for determination is whether 30 days'' limitation for filing the objection u/s 5-A of the Act is to be computed from the date of the notification u/s 4 of the Act or from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette.

The relevant portions of Sections 4 and 5-A. are as under:

Section 4(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, a notification to that effect shall be published in the official Gazette, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality.

* * * *

* * * *

Section 5-A(l). Any person interested in any land which has been notified u/s 4, Sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for, a public purpose or for a Company may, within Thirty days after the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality as the case may be. (2). Every objection under Sub-section (1), shail be made to the Collector in writing and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such futher inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, submit, the case for decision of the appropriate Government, together with the record of the proceeding, held by him and a report containing his recommendations on the objections. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final.

* * * *

* * * *

a bare reading of these two provisions would show that first of all a notification u/s 4 of the Act has to be published in the Official Gazette and the Collector has also to give public notice of the substance of this notification at convenient places in the locality. Then u/s 5-A of the Act, any person, who is interested in the land which has been notified u/s 4, can within 30 days after the issue of the notification file objections to the acquisition of the land. The words "after the issue of the notification" appearing in Section 5-A obviously" mean "after the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette", because the objections can only be filed after the land has been notified in the Official Gazette u/s 4 of the Act. The words "after the issue of the notification" do not mean "after the date of the preparation of the notification by the Department concerned", because the notification becomes effective only after the public comes to know about the same. It is only then that they can file objections u/s 5-A of the Act.

In the present case, the notification was published in the Official Gazette on 6-5-1960 and the objections were, admittedly, filed on 31-5-1960, that is to say within 30 days of the publication of the notification. The same are, consequently within time. Learned Counsel for the State conceded that if the objections were not barred by limitation, then the notification u/s 6 of the Act would be bad in law because those objections had to be disposed of before issuing this notification. Moreover, in the present case, the notification u/s 4 clearly stated that the objections had to be tiled within 30 days of the publication of the notification and various dates were fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for hearing of the same. They were still pending and the said officer had not informed the Petitioner that they were barred by limitation and would not be considered.

In view of what I have said above, this petition succeeds and the notification dated 10-6-1960 issued u/s 6 of the Act and all proceedings taken there under are quashed. In the circumstances of this case, however, I will make no order as to costs in these proceedings.