LexAMARJIT SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 163 AMARJIT SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8431 of 2010) SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, R.M. LODHA AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] A B Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 - ss. 178(2) and 14 - Exemption notification under . C s. 178(2) - Validity of - Expansion of existing township of SAS (Nagar) Mohali - Acquisition of land for sectors 81, 88 and 89 - Issuance of notification dated 10. 02. 2004 under Section 178(2) - Exemption of land under acquisition from the provisions of Section 14 and Chapters VIII, X and XII - D Legality of - Held: Does not suffer from any legal infirmity - Notification was issued keeping in view large public interest and planned development of the area - Compliance with the provisions of 1995 Act was not practical because township witnessed phenomenal growth over the years - Also E notification was never challenged before High Court in writ petition filed by expropriated owners - Thus, acquisition under challenge not rendered bad for non-compliance with the provisions of the Act - Re-habilitation of owners is not an essential requirement for a valid acquisition of property - F Land pooling scheme cannot be made applicable to the acquisition of land acquired from expropriated owners - Scheme is only prospective in operation - It cannot be introduced after the acquisition and even allotment process is over - Direction issued to Collector to make reference to G civil court for determination of reasonable compensation payable to owners, if owners make applications for reference - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss.4, 6, 18, and 23(1) -Punjab Urban Estate (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 - 163 H 164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 12 S.C.R. A Punjab Housing Development Board Act, 1972 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 300-A - Eminent Domain - Urban development - Town planning - Notifications - Exemption notification dated 10.02.2004 - lnterprotation of States - Liberal construction. B SAS (Nagar) Mohali was identified for planned development by addition of sectors 53 to 81. This was much prior to the enactment of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995. In the first phase, sectors 53 to 75 were developed under the C provisions of the Punjab Urban Estate (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 and the Punjab Housing Development Board Act, 1972. The land for these sectors was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. To further extend the township, the land was acquired for D sectors 76 to 80. 10% of the land owners challenged the acquisition on the ground that the provisions of the 1995 Act were not complied with. The High Court stayed the dispossession of the owners. The Government invoked its powers under Section 178(2) of the 1995 Act and E exempted the areas falling under sectors 76 to 80 from the provisions of Section 14 and Chapters VIII, IX and XII of the Act. The landowners in Jasmer Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., CWP No.29 of 2004 challenged the exemption notification. The High Court dismissed the writ F petition. In appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the order. In the third phase, acquisition proceedings for development of sectors 81, 88 and 89 were initiated. A preliminary notification under section 4 of the Act proposed an area of 417.39 acres in sector 81 and 688.89 G acres in sectors 88 and 89 for acquisition. The Government again invoked the provisions of Section 178(2) of the 1995 Act in regard to the land notified for ' development of sectors 81, 88 and 89. A notification dated 10.02.2004 exempted the land falling in the said H AMARJIT SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & 165 ORS. sectors from the provisions of Section 14 and Chapters A VIII, X and XII of the 1995 Act. Aggrieved, the appellants- expropriated owners filed writ petitions challenging the preliminary Notification dated 23.01.04 issued under Section 4 of the Act and the declaration dated 18.01.05 issued under Section 6 of the Act; the constitutional B validity of section 23(1) of the Act, and the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952. The High Court upheld the impugned enactments as also the notifications issued under the Act. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeals. c The questions which arose for consideration in the instant appeals are whether the exemption of the land under acquisition from the provisions o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.