Sukhdev Singh vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

S.K. Jain, J.—The petitioners have challenged notification No. 11/64/81-5H(v)/5425, dated February, 22, 1991 issued u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) and the declaration u/s 6 of the Act made vide notification No. 11/64/91-5H (V)5432, dated February 22, 1991, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Land measuring 2968.26000 acres situate at villages Karoli, Pangoli, Bungal, Tika, Nagrota, Kether, Kaheri, Gagroli, Seunti, Terhari Tika, Nagrota and Terhari Tika Phangtoli, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur was acquired by the Union of India for a public purpose, viz., defence of India. The notification further provided that "the President of India, in exercise of the powers conferred under the Act, is pleased to direct that action under Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act shall be taken on the ground that the land described in the notification is urgently needed for the purpose of defence of India at villages Karoli, Pangoli, Bungal, Ngrota, Kether, Kaheri, Gangrol, Seunti Terhari, Tika Nagrota and Terhari Tika Phangtoli, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur and that the provisions of Section 5A of the Act shall not apply in regard to this acquisition." On the same date, declaration u/s 6 of the Act was made vide Notification No. 11/64/91-5H (V)/5432. The notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was published in the Punjab Govt. Official Gazette on March 6,1991 and the substance thereof was published in the daily Tribune dated March 19, 1991, daily Jagbani dated March 19, 1991. The proclamation in the villages concerned was made on March 19,1991 vide Rapat Roznamcha No. 270 of even date. The declaration u/s 6 of the Act was published in the Punjab Govt. Gazette dated March 6, 1991 and substance thereof was also published in the daily Indian Express dated March 19, 1991, daily Punjabi Tribune dated March 22, 1991 and proclamation to that effect in the village(s) concerned was made on March 20, 1991. Notices u/s 9(1) of the Act were served upon the petitioners and other landowners. 80% of the estimated cost of the land under reference was deposited with the Special Land Acquisition Collector, Amritsar. A sizeable amount of this estimated cost of compensation was disbursed to eligible ex-land-owners of villages Nagrota, Trehali Tika Nagrota, Kiari, Gagroli, Kuther, Bungal, Trehali-Tika -Phangtoly and Pangoli.

The acquisition of land has been challenged by the petitioners principally on twin grounds:-

(i) Power under Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act dispensing with the provisions of Section 5A ibid has wrongly been exercised; and

(ii) Compulsory acquisition of land situated in villages Mamoon, Chhatwal, Jandwal, Bungal and other villages was made in mid sixties, but the abadi land was excluded from the acquisition, in the acquisition under challenge, abadi land of all other villages except that of village Karoli has been left out of acquisition. Acquisition of abadi land will result in uprooting of hundreds of people.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the Union of India by the Defence Estates Officer, Pathankot Circle, Pathankot, it is stated that the land had been acquired for a public purpose i.e. defence of India. The details of the public purpose cannot be disclosed as it involves security of the country. The Pakistan border is just 40 kms. away from the acquired lands.

In the written statement dated September 7, 1991, filed on behalf of the Union of India by the Assistant Defence Estates Officer, Pathankot Circle, Pathankot, it is stated that the lands had been acquired on the basis of selection of land by the Army authorities. The sole guiding factor for acquiring the land has been the strategic military consideration as determined by the Army authorities.

The question of the existence and the extent of urgency is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the Government. Court''s interference is confined to the grounds of non-existence of material or non-application of mind or the grounds of mala fide. It is not the case of the petitioners that the requisite material did not exist before the appropriate authority to arrive at a satisfaction that in view of the circumstances power under Sub-Section (1) of Section 17 of the Act be exercised. The petitioners have not brought any material on record that the emergency power under Sub-section (1) of Section 17 could not be exercised with regard to the lands covered under the notification u/s 4 of the Act. The respondents in their written statement have stated that the emergency power was exercised keeping in view the larger interests of the security of the State and the land for acquisition was selected by the Army authorities keeping in view the strategic defence considerations. We do not find that the power under Sub-section (1) Section 17 of the Act has been exercised for insufficient reasons.

The second ground of attack is equally unsustainable. It is denied that in the acquisition of land made in mid-sixtees, the abadi land of villages Mamoon, Chhatwal, Jandwal, Bungal and other villages was not acquired. The abadi land was acquired. Similarly, under the instant acquisition, the abadi land of not only of village Karoli had been acquired, but that of all other villages also. The allegation of discrimination appears to be ill-founded, 8. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed, but with no order as to costs.