Punjab State vs Sansar Preet Mandal, Preet Nagar

A.L. Bahri, J.

Defendants State of Punjab and others have filed this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge, Amritsar dated September 16, 1988 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs Sansar Preet Mandal and others (President and General Secretary of the Said Mandal) for declaration that the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) for acquiring plaintiffs land measuring 26 Kanals 10 Marlas, comprising Khasra Nos. 307, 308, 309, 323 and 327, situated in village Lopoke and the entire acquisition proceedings taken subsequently and award No. 1 of 1977 dated May 4, 1977 passed by the Sub Divisional OfficercumLand Acquisition Collector, Ajnala were illegal, contrary to the provisions of the law, principles of natural justice, arbitrary, mala fide, void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiffs, with consequential relief, restraining the defendants from taking possession of the aforesaid land in pursuance to the aforesaid acquisition proceedings and the award. The said suit was dismissed by Subordinate Judge I Class, Amritsar on January 17, 1983.

Sansar Preet Mandal (World Love Union) was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. This society was founded by the wellknown Punjabi writer, Shri Gurbax Singh Preetlari. The complex of the Mandal later came to be known as Preet Nagar. The officials of the Department of Fisheries, Punjab on August 27, 1975 visited Preet Nagar for setting up a Fish Seed Nursery. They contacted Shri Gurbax Singh, the President of the Mandal who assured them to go ahead with the project. On September 6, 1975 Shri Gurbax Singh gave his consent in writing. He was to part with the land on the price to be determined by the Revenue Department. Subsequently, the State of Punjab started proceedings under the Act for acquiring the said land. On March 31, 1976 notifications u/s. 4 and 6 of the Act were simultaneously issued. State of Punjab invoked the urgency provisions. Subsequently, on May 4, 1977 the Land Acquisition Collector made his award fixing in all Rs. 8,395/ as compensation for the land acquired which measured 26 Kanals 10 Marlas. It was on October 11, 1977 that the plaintiffs came to know about the said award. On December 15, 1979. One Hirdey Pal Singh is alleged to have received the said amount through cheque acting on behalf of Sansar Preet Mandal. The suit was filed on June 13, 1980. After the trial Court disposed of the suit and the appeal was pending, the defendants took possession of the land comprising Khasra No. 327. The plaintiffs, therefore, amended the plaint in order to claim relief of possession of land comprising Khasra No. 327.

The suit was contested by the State of Punjab and other defendants on differents grounds. The trial Court framed the following issues :

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

Whether the suit is within time ? OPD

Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit ? OPD

Whether the notification and acquisition proceedings taken thereafter regarding the suit property are illegal, void and ineffective against the plaintiffs on the grounds as alleged in para 4 of the plaint ? OPD

Relief.

The appellate Court framed the following two additional issues :

Whether the appellantplaintiffs are entitled to recover the possession of the suit land ? (OPP)

Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPP

The report of the trial Court on these issues was obtained. As stated above, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The trial Court held that the suit was maintainable. However, the same was barred by time. The Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of section 52 of the Act. The acquisition proceedings were held to be invalid. Under the additional issued it was held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover possession to the land through Civil Court, as possession had been delivered by the Collector under the provisions of the Public Premises Act. The suit was held to be properly valued for purposes of courtfee and jurisdiction. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs holding that the suit was within time; the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit and the acquisition proceedings and the award were illegal and void. The defendants did not take possession of the land acquired except the land comprising Khasra No. 327 possession of which was ordered to be delivered to the plaintiffs. I have heard the counsel for the parties.

The eviction order was passed against the respondents under the Public Premises Act on which reliance was being placed by the appellants in order to show that possession of the acquired land was earlier taken which was recognized by the authority under the said Act while passing the order of eviction. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the said order of eviction was set aside on appeal by the Commissioner. Thus, the position remains as it was on the date of filing of the present suit. On the evidence produced it is to be decided whether the State had taken over possession of the land acquired or not.

The appellants claim to have become owners of the land in dispute on counts. Firstly, it is stated that under the private negotiations with Shri Gurbax Singh of the Mandal, it was agreed to purchase the land. Since Shri Gurbax Singh allowed the officials of the State Government to survey and make development on the acquired land, it should be deemed that the appellants entered into possession of the same under the said agreement. There is fallacy in this argument. Firstly, no sale deed was executed on maturity of the alleged agreement and the title did not pass to the appellants. No document has been brought to my notice indicating delivery of possession by the Mandal to the appellants, that is the officials of the Department of Fisheries. As far as the consent of Shri Gurbax Singh to give the land and the tank on the price to be fixed by the Revenue Department in the writing dated September 6, 1975 Ex. DC is concerned, this does not show that Shri Gurbax Singh had delivered, possession of the land to the Department. Further reliance was placed upon a writing given by Darshan Singh, Secretary of the Mandal on September 23, 1975 Ex. D1. Even this document does not show that actual possession of the land agreed to be given was delivered. This writing merely permitted the officials of the Department to visit the land, make survey or make certain development. The lower appellate Court, thus, rightly came to the conclusion that possession had not been delivered to the appellants.

The other plank of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that possession should be deemed to have been delivered under the provisions of the Act. After the notifications were issued u/ss 4 and 6 of the Act and the award was made, the amount of the compensation as determined for the land was accepted without any protest. At this stage, I will only comment on the question of delivery of possession. In spite of the fact that award was made or that the compensation amount was also paid, no entry is coming forth from the Revenue Record or any written document to show that on the spot actual possession was taken after the award was made.

As far as the question of legality of the acquisition proceedings is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the receipt for the payment of the amount and argued that on acceptance of the money, the plaintiffs are estopped from questioning the legality of the land acquisition proceedings. In my view, there is no force in this contention. If the land acquisition proceedings are held to be ab void initio, any action taken in the proceedings would automatically be void. The initial requirement of sections 4 and 6 of the Act was not only to publish the notifications issued thereunder in the Government Gazette, but also to publish their substance by proclamation in the locality. This was also held by the Full Bench of this Court in Kashmiri Lal and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 1983 PLR 741. The provisions of section 4(1) of the Act were held to be mandatory. Without compliance with the provisions of section 4(1) of the Act as to publication of the notification, the Collector could into proceed to acquire the land. It was held that a later publication in the Gazette may go unnoticed with the result the the interested persons may lose the right to file objections u/s 5A of the Act within limitation which undoubtedly can be gravely prejudicial. The Supreme Court in Khub Chand and other v. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1967 SC 1074 also held similar provisions in the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act to be mandatory and to be strictly construed. In the present case, as already noticed above, notification u/ss 4 and 6 of the Act were not published in the locality, as is apparent form the report Ex PX of Munish Masih (PW 2). The plaintiffsowners of the land sought to be acquired under those notification were into served with any notice u/s 9 of the Act. Furthermore even at the time of preparing the award, the Collector did into serve them any notice. Even making of the award was also not made known to them by the Collector. It was subsequently that the Department of Fisheries informed the plaintiffs about the award and called upon them to execute the sale deed on receipt of the amount so determined. This was stated in the letter dated 11.10.1977, as mentioned in Ex. D4 and as deposed by PW6 Darshan singh. This would show that even at that stage, the appellants were banking upon the private negotiations for completion of the sale transaction. Even otherwise if the amount had been offered by the Collector under the Act, the Collector himself would have taken possession while making an entry in the revenue record. Nothing of the sort was done except possession of laud of Khasra No. 327 was taken vide entry No. 10 dated 1091985 Ex. PW8/1 under the Public Premises Act. Copies of Khasra Girdawaries Ex. PW6/3, PW6/4 and PW6/5 prove possession of the plaintiffs.

While issuing notifications simultaneously u/ss 4 and 6 of the Act, the urgency provisions were resorted to. If the contention of the appellants is that possession had already been taken, there was no need for invoking the urgency provisions. Even if these provisions were invoked, no action was taken immediately on issuing of the notification to formally take possession. Since the mandatory provisions of the Act were not complied with, the acquisition proceeding are hold to be void.

For challenging void orders or proceedings the question of limitation would not arise. Likewise, the question of compliance with section 52 of the Act would also not arise. Even otherwise, on coming to know of the void order from letter dated October 11, 1977 the suit filed within three years thereafter would be within time. The findings of the lower appellate Court in these respects are correct.

Civil Miscellaneous 594C of 1989 was filed by the State for staying execution proceedings. This application was ordered to be heard with the appeal. In view of the above decision, the application has become infructuous and is dismissed.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is dismissed with costs.