Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
BALMOKAND KHATRI EDUCATIONAL ANDINDUSTRIAL TRUST, AMRITSAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/02/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 1239 1996 SCC (4) 212
JT 1996 (3) 60 1996 SCALE (2)577
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Notification under Section 4 [1] of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, the "Act"] was published
in the State Gazette on February 26, 1976. Dispensing with
the enquiry under Section 5-A, declaration under Section 6
was published on the same day. Notice under Section 9 was
served on March 3, 1976. The appellant filed Writ Petition
No.1359 of 1976 on March 7, 1976. On March 19,1976, the High
Court ordered stay of dispossession. After the counter-
affidavit was filed by the respondents, the High Court
dismissed the writ petition on April 4, 1976. In the
meanwhile, award enquiry was conducted and the award under
Section 11 was made on March 18, 1976. Possession of the
land was taken on April 17,1976. It would appear that the
Land Acquisition Officer [LAO] had deposited the
compensation on May 18, 1976. Record has been placed before
us to show that the land was earmarked and distributed to
592 landless workers on April 22, 1976. On December 11,
1979, the appellant again filed Writ Petition No.4460 of
1979 which came to be dismissed by the High Court on
February 7, 1980. Thus this appeal by special leave. Interim
stay granted on May 8, 1980 was modified by this Court,
maintaining status quo, by order dated September 13, 1981.
It is clear from these facts that after dispensing with
the enquiry under Section 5-A, immediate action was taken by
issuance of the notice under Section 9 and award enquiry was
conducted since dispossession was ordered by the High Court.
After the dismissal of the writ petition, possession was
taken on April 17, 1976. Thus the process of the requisition
was completed and the acquisition became final. What
remained to be done was only the determination of the
compensation in respect of the acquired land. In this case,
the land acquired is of the extent of 121 canals 10 marlas.
Shri P.H Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
with his thorough preparation, has contended that dispensing
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
with enquiry under Section 5 A is bad in law. However, we
find no force in the contention. The Punjab Legislature has
amended the Central Act by Amendment Acts II/1954, XVII/6
and XLVIII/1956 whereunder an explanation has been added to
sub-section [1] of Section 17 of the Act. Sub-section [2]
was also added in which clause [b] of the sub-section
envisages thus:
"(b) whenever in the opinion of the
Collector it becomes necessary to
acquire the immediate possession of
any land for the purpose of any
library or educational institution
or for the construction, extension
or improvement of any building or
other structure in any village for
the common use of inhabitants of
such village, or any godown for any
society registered under Co-
operative Societies Act, 1912, or
any dwelling house for the poor, or
the construction of labour colonies
or houses for any other class of
people under a Government sponsored
housing scheme, or any irrigation
tank, irrigation or drainage
channel, or any well, or any public
road;"
Thus the Government, by virtue of State Amendment is
empowered to exercise the urgency clause under sub-section
[4] of Section 17 and to dispense with the enquiry under
Section 5-A of the Act. Shri Parekh has contended that mere
existence of the power is not sufficient. The urgency should
be such as would not brook delay of 30 days in conducting
the enquiry contemplated under Section 5-A. In this case,
allotment of the house sites to the poor is not such an
urgency which cannot wait for conducting the enquiry.
Therefore, exercising the power under Section 17 [4] is bad
in law. He seeks to place reliance on the decision of this
Court in Naryan Govind Gavate etc. v. State of Maharashtra
[(1977) 1 SCR 763]. In a recent decision in Chameli Singh &
Ors.etc. v. State of U.P. & Anr. [[(1996) 1 SCALE 101], this
Court considered the entire case law and held that providing
house sites to the poor is an urgent necessity and exercise
of the power under Section 17 [4] to dispense with the
enquiry under Section 5-A would be justified. The reasoning
of this Court in Gavate’s case also was considered and it
was held that exercising the power under Section 17 [4]
cannot be struck down when the Government was of the opinion
that it urgently required the possession of the land for
providing house sites to the poor.
It is seen that the entire gamut of the acquisition
proceedings stood completed by April 17, 1976 by which date
possession of the land had been taken. No doubt, Shri Parekh
has contended that the appellant still retained their
possession. It is now well-settled legal position that it is
difficult to take physical possession of the land under
compulsory acquisition. The normal mode of taking possession
is drafting the Panchnama in the presence of Panchas and
taking possession and giving delivery to the beneficiaries
is the accepted mode of taking possession of the land.
Subsequent thereto, the retention of possession would
tantamount only to illegal or unlawful possession.
Under these circumstances, merely because the appellant
retained possession of the acquired land, the acquisition
cannot be said to be bad in law. It is then contended by
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
Shri Parekh that the appellant-Institution is running an
educational institution and intends to establish a public
school and that since other land was available, the
Government would have acquired some other land leaving the
acquired land for the appellant. In the counter-affidavit
filed in the High Court, it was stated that apart from the
acquired land, the appellant also owned 482 canals 19 marlas
of land. Thereby, it is seen that the appellant is not
disabled to proceed with the continuation of the educational
institution which it seeks to establish. It is then
contended that an opportunity may be given to the appellant
to make a representation to the State Government. We find
that it is not necessary for us to give any such liberty
since acquisition process has already been completed.
Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the
Chief Secretary himself has conducted an enquiry and
identified the officer who was responsible for the lapses in
omitting to instruct the counsel and for not producing the
record as part of the record of the Court. We accept the
report submitted by the Chief Secretary. It would be open to
him to pursue further action to reach a logical conclusion.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs.