LexMOHAN SINGH GILL & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015) 5 S.C.R. 542 MOHAN SINGH GILL & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos.3177-3178 of 2015) MARCH 25, 2015 [ANIL R. DAVE AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.) c Lan.d Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4, 5A, 6 and 17 - Realignment of road and planning of bypass by Government - Acquisition of large chunk of land vide two notifications - Vide first notification, land acquired for development of proposed road-Missing Link-II on the route D - By the second notification, land acquired for the development of residential urban estate along with the proposed road, mainly to adjust oustees of the said road - Award passed - Writ petition challenging the Notifications - Plea that land not utilised entirely for construction of the E said proposed road but large portion of the acquired land used for commercial purpose not stated in the Notification - Dismissal of writ petition - On appeal, held: Need of land for construction of Missing Link-II duly established - In the F Notification, land is acquired for development - From reading the notification, a common person with reasonable prudence cannot visualise that the part of land is sought to be exploited for commercial development as well - With no such specific stipulation, landowners were deprived of an G effective opportunity to file the objections uls. 5-A - Hidden purpose for acquiring 'surplus' land, apart from constructing Missing Link-II, was to develop it as commercial area so that the finances could be arranged for construction of road cannot be treated as public purpose - Notifications to the H 542 MOHAN SINGH GILL v. STATE OF PUNJAB 543 extent they acquire land over and above which is needed A for construction of Missing Link-II, thus, bad in law and set aside - As regards, second notification, since the eligible land owners/structure holders of Missing Link-II road as well as urban estate would be considered for allotment of plot house as per oustee policy of the Government, as also other B reasons, validity of the challenge made not gone into - However, as to the extent of land that needs to be acquired for this purpose; and which particular piece of land is more suited, is to be looked into by the Government and not the C Court - Appellants given liberty to make suitable representation to the Government - Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 - s. 77. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court D HELD: 1.1 There have been due deliberations by the competent authorities deciding upon the realignment of the road leading to proposed Missina Link-II. There is no arbitrariness in the exercise done at the highest level inasmuch as the Chief Minister himself E approved the revised plans. [Paras 14, 15] [555-D-E] 1.2 A perusal of Section 76(1) of Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 clearly indicates that the Master Plan can be amended at any F time after the date on which the Master Plan for an area comes into operation and not after 10 years from such date. Even otherwise, the High Court was of the view that, in the instant case, Section 76 of Punjab Act has G no applicability and in fact the realignment has been done under Section 77 of the Punjab Act and, thus, there is no violation of the provisions of the Punjab Act. The findings arrived at by the High Court is concurred with. From plans, an attempt is made to demonstrate that at H 544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 5 S.C.R. A no point of time there is any variation in the alignment of Missing Link-II between the pl>rtions f 1 to G, be it Master Plan, Revenue Plans or Zonal Development Plan. The only change in alignment has been made between the portion F and F1 which was necessitated 8 during the implementation of the Master Plan to avoid the area in which there was heavy construction existing. The realigned road between Point F and f 1 is passing through open areas avoiding the constructed areas. C Thus, the plea of the appellants that the alignment of the road between Points F and G from Traffic & Transportation Plan of the Master Plan has been shifted by about 3 - 4.5 kms on the Northern side is not correct As a consequence, insofar as need of land for the D construction of Missing Link-II is concerned, the same stands duly established and for acquisition of this chunk of land, there cannot be any exception. [Paras 16, 17, 18, 19) [556-H; 557-A-B; 558-A-E] E 1.3 In the notification i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.