Sumitra Devi vs State of Punjab and others

D.S. Tewatia, J. (Oral)

The present writ petition discloses a novel use of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for acquiring citizen''s property.

The petitioner Smt. Sumitra Devi had purchased a constructed property in the year 1964, which according to her comprised of 4 Khasra numbers i.e. 303, 340 and 304, besides an unnamed Khasra number. The constructed portion i.e. the building part had been taken on lease by the Education Department of the respondentState Government for running Govt. Hr. Sec. School therein.

The respondentState vide notifications Annexures P.2 and P.3 respectively issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Act and published simultaneously on May 12, 1972 acquired entire khasra No. 303 which comprises of an area measuring 11 Marlas and 41 feet.

What is of interest in this case is that the Land Acquisition Collector in his award Annexure P.4 dated March 24, 1973, awarded compensation only in regard to the land.

The petitioner through this writ petition has approached this court with twin grievances: (i) that she had not been awarded any compensation for the building nor she had been paid any rent for the same till today, and (ii) that the building stood constructed upon two Khasra Nos i.e. 303 and 304 as is evident from Annexure R.3 placed on the record by respondentstate itself wherein a line drawn to separately show the acquired and unacquired portions cuts across the constructed rooms of the buildings yet the Government acquired only Khasra No. 303 and not Khasra No. 304 as well.

The above facts disclose total lack of mental application to the fact as to what was required and needed to satisfy the public purpose in view. For 10 years this lady had neither been paid any rent nor any compensation for the building.

This case also discloses flagrant abuse of the provisions of section 17 of the Act.The State Government being already in possession of the building there was no urgency whatsoever. Had the urgency provisions not been invoked, the petitioner would have raised objections under section 5A of the Act to the partial acquisition of the land and the building and the mistake would have been corrected then and there.

In a case of this kind, the interest of the petitioner can in my view, only be protected by quashing the notifications and not otherwise. I, therefore, quash the notifications and direct the respondent to pay the rent to the petitioner uptodate within three months from today and also pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent on the amount to which the petitioner becomes entitled to after deducting the amount of compensation already received by her.

The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above with costs which are assessed at Rs. 300/.