Teeka Ram vs Land Acquisition Collector

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.

The petitioner herein impugned the acquisition of land by notifications dated March 31, 1989 (Annexure P.1) and March 21, 1990 (Annexure P.2). Both the notifications were initially issued on March 31, 1989. The petitioner challenged the acquisition proceedings through Civil Writ Petition No. 6440 of 1989. In pursuance to the notice of motion issued by the Division Bench, the notification under Section 6 was withdrawn. The writ petition was accordingly rendered infructuous and dismissed as such vide orders dated February 21, 1990. Thereafter, the notification under Section 6 was issued again on March 21, 1990. Provisions of Section 17 having been invoked, the petitioner challenges these notifications primarily on two grounds. It has been firstly urged that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated as the provisions of Section 4 which are mandatory had not been complied with inasmuch as the notifications had not been published in two daily newspapers as also the substance of the notification had not been given at convenient places in the locality. Secondly, it has been urged that in the circumstances of the case, the emergency provisions of Section 17 could not have been invoked.

The respondents, on the other hand, have pointed out that the notification under Section 4 has been duly published in accordance with the provisions of law. It has been further pointed out that the petitioner was fully aware of the notification and the acquisition proceedings. It has also been pointed out that the emergency provisions had been invoked in view of the fact that the land was being acquired for the construction of godowns at Karnal by Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. The godowns are being constructed under the World Bank scheme through the National Cooperative Development Corporation of India and the entire amount is to be invested by the World Bank. In view of the fact that it was a timebound scheme, it had become necessary to invoke the urgency provisions under Section 17. It has also been averred in the written statement that the petitioner was not the exclusive owner of the land under acquisition. In fact he was one of the seven cosharers and none of the other cosharers had raised any objection to the proceedings for acquisition. It has also been averred that initially the notification under Section 6 had to be withdrawn as the two notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act had been issued on the same day viz. March 31, 1989. After the dismissal of the writ petition, a notification under Section 6 of the Act had been issued on March 21, 1990. Further notices under Section 9 were also issued and all formalities including the announcement of award were completed on July 31, 1990.

I have heard Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and M/s C.P. Goel and Jaswant Singh for the respondents.

Mr. Goel has produced before me the photostat copies of the relevant extracts from the two newspapers (one in Hindi and the other in English) showing the publicity given to the notification under Section 4 in the press. These are placed on record as "Mark A" and "Mark B". Furthermore, a perusal of the Roznamcha report dated April 25, 1989'' shows that public notice of the substance of the notification under Section 4 was also given in the locality. It has been suggested that correct particulars of the notification were hot given. On behalf of the respondents, it has been averred in the written statement that the number of notification has been wrongly typed. Consequently, I find that the provisions of Section 4 of the Act had been duly complied with.

Equally lacking in merit is the contention that the emergency provisions could not have been invoked. Admittedly, the land was required for the construction of godowns under a scheme sanctioned by the World Bank. Timely completion of the scheme was in the interest of all concerned. Action of the respondents in invoking the emergency provisions was absolutely justified. In fact, by a specific amendment in Section 17, the State of Haryana has specifically provided that emergency provisions can be invoked whenever it becomes necessary to acquire immediate possession of the land for the purpose of construction of "any godown for any society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912...". The present acquisition was for. the construction of godowns by the HAFED. The action of the Government in invoking Section 17 was in complete conformity with the provision of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act.

Another fact which deserves mention herein is that the award was announced by the Collector on July 31, 1990. The respondent No. 3 has produced the copy of the award given by the Land Acquisition Collector as Annexure R/3/1. In pursuance to the award an amount of Rs. 5,25,323.35 is shown to have been deposited into the State, Bank of India on August 3, 1990. A copy of the receipt has been produced as Annexure R/3/2. In this situation, I am, in any case, not inclined to interfere with the action of the respondents.

The writ petition is without any merit It is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.