Surinder Pal Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

J.S. Khehar, J.—The petitioner''s land was acquired by the State Government with the issuance of notifications dated 12.5.2003 and 13.5.2003 (under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894) respectively. It would be pertinent to mention, that while acquiring the land of the petitioner the State Government invoked the emergency provisions contained in Section 17 of the aforesaid Act. It is not a matter of dispute, that the Land Acquisition Collector announced his award u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 24.8.2005 and, that the petitioner received the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Collector.

The action of the respondents to acquire the land under reference was assailed before this Court but not by the petitioner. The challenge raised in this Court failed. Proceedings initiated thereafter before the Apex Court also failed. In the aforesaid sense, the notifications dated 12.5.2003 and 13.5.2003, referred to hereinabove, attained finality.

Despite the declaration of the award by the Land Acquisition Collector, as far as back in the year 2005, the petitioner has approached this Court more than four years thereafter, seeking the release of his land. The instant determination at the hands of the petitioner is based on a communication dated 26.2.2008, addressed on behalf of the Housing and Urban Development Department to the Chief Administrator, Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority, Ludhiana. An extract of the aforesaid communication is being reproduced hereunder:

Subject: Missing Link Pakhowal Road Phase III, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.

Please refer to your letter No. C.A/GLADA/Ldh./2008 dated 16.1.2008 on the subject noted above.

After carefully considering the prose and cons of proposal given in the letter under reference at the Government level, it has been decided to drop the project for Missing Link (Pakhowal Road-Phase 3,Dugri Road, Ludhiana). Keeping in view this decision, action to file reply to C.W.P. No. 17495 of 2007 in the Hon''ble Punjab & Haryana High Court be taken.

Based on the aforesaid communication, it is the vehement contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the State government having "...decided to drop..." the project which was the basis of acquiring the land under the notifications dated 12.5.2003 and 13.5.2003, must be deemed to have taken the aforesaid decision in consonance with the provisions of section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Since the petitioner is allegedly in possession of the land in question, it is the vehement contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that after the aforesaid decision, the respondents cannot take possession of the land of the petitioner except on the issuance of fresh notifications u/s 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view, that the solitary submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is wholly devoid of merit. The communication dated 26.2.2008, extracted hereinabove, was with the pointed purpose of taking a stance for filing a reply to CWP No. 17495 of 2007, pending in this Court. The stance which was actually taken at the behest of the Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority to whom the aforesaid communication was addressed, is available on the record of this case as Annexure-P17. A perusal of Annexure P17 i.e. the joint written statement filed in CWP No. 17495 of 2007 on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 reveals, that the determination to drop the project was re- examined, whereupon the State Government eventually decided to continue with the project, for which the land was acquired.

In the sequence of facts, noticed hereinabove, the only issue which needs to be adjudicated upon is, whether possession of the land earlier acquired could be taken from the petitioner, without initiation of a fresh process of acquisition (by issuing notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act). In our considered view, the communication dated 26.2.2008, was merely an internal communication. No decision was published by the government so as to de-acquire the land sought to be acquired (under notifications dated 12.5.2003 and 13.5.2003). The only purpose of the communication dated 26.2.2008 (extracted above) was to take a stance, as a matter of reply to the averments made in CWP No. 17495 of 2007. It was open to the State government to review the decision recorded in the communication dated 26.2.2008. The State government on a reconsideration of the matter actually reversed the decision expressed in the communication dated 26.2.2008. This determination of the State government emerges from the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The aforesaid internal communication dated 26.2.2008 was actually never given effect. Since it is not possible for us to accept, that any order/decision was passed by the State government in terms of the mandate of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition of the Act, we are of the view, that the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner i.e., that the respondents can take possession of the land in question only after re-initiating the entire process of acquisition all over again, is wholly misconceived.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in this petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed.