State of Punjab vs Sona Gir and another

J.V. Gupta, J.

This judgment will also dispose of R.S.A. Nos. 1223, 1175 of 1978 and R.S.A. No. 346 of 1979, as the question involved is common in all these cases.

The plaintiffs filed this suit on the averments that the defendantPunjab State started reclamation of the land of the plaintiffs in the year 195455, in exercise of powers under the Pepsu Reclamation of Lands Act 2009BK, illegally, without any right or authority and without any jurisdiction. According to the plaintiffs, the said reclamation work was started forcibly, without permission and without any notice to the plaintiffs. The mandatory provisions under Section 4 of the Pepsu Reclamation Act and also under the Punjab Reclamation Act are, that the State Government shall issue notification and declare the area reclaimable and that notification shall be published in the official gazette. According to the plaintiffs, no such notification was ever published and hence, all the proceedings were illegal. Moreover, no notices of reclamation, were issued to the land owners including the plaintiffs. Therefore, a declaration was sought that the alleged proceedings for reclamation, were null and void and further relief of injunction that the State Government be restrained from realising the charges for reclamation.

The suit was contested, inter alia, on the grounds that the suit for injunction was not maintainable; that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter; that the Collector authorised the Agriculture Department to enter upon the land for the purpose of reclamation vide order dated 22.8.1986 and that the land was reclaimed by the Director of Agriculture under the Pepsu Reclamation of Lands Act. According to the written statement, the notice was served on the owners to take back the possession of the reclaimed area. The plaintiff took back the possession of the reclaimed land and signed prescribed disposal forms stating that the land had been properly reclaimed to their satisfaction. In all these circumstances, the plaintiffs'' suit was liable to be dismissed. In all these cases, it has been concurrently found by both the Courts below that there was no proper notification under Section 4 of the Pepsu Reclamation Act and, therefore, any reclamation done by the State Government was illegal and without any proper notice to the plaintiffs. In view of that finding the plaintiffs'' suits for declaration were decreed, whereas relief of injunction was declined.

The learned counsel for the State submits that in view of the notification under Section 4 of the Pepsu Reclamation Act, Exhibit D.W. 5/A, it has been wrongly held that there was no proper notification and the reclamation was done illegally.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in these appeals. Section 4 of the Pepsu Reclamation Act is reproduced as under :

Section 4 (1) : If the State Government is of the opinion that any waste lands and intervening cultivated lands are required for reclamation, it may by notification declare them to be reclaimable area or areas for the purpose of this Act.

4(2) : The Collector of the District in which the reclaimable area is situated shall publish the notification issued under such Section in such manner as he may deem fit.

In these cases, no such notification appears to have been published at all and even the letter alleged to be the notification, copy Exhibit D.W. 5/A, is defective, in so much so, that the khasra numbers with the names of the respective owners are not mentioned therein. Thus, the said notification does not help the State Government in any manner. In these circumstances I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the concurrent findings of the two Courts below as to be interfered with in second appeal. Consequently, all the appeals fail and are dismissed with no orders as to costs.