STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus SANJEET SINGH GREWAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 03-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

r 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SANJEET SINGH GREWAL AND ORS. 
JULY 3, 2007 
[B.P. SINGH AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
B 
Purifab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995; 
Section 56-Setting up of a new town-Acquisition of land therefor-
Scope explained-Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
C 
The State of Punjab issued Notifications dated March 13, 2000 under 
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 
Act') for acquisition of about 9354 acres of land in 29 villages of the district 
of Ropar. The acquisition was proposed to be made for "a public purpose D 
namely for setting up of new town, Anandgarh". Objections were invited against 
the proposed acquisition. The aforesaid Notifications were challenged by way 
of filing several writ petitions before the High Court alleging that the 
Notifications had been issued in derogation of the 'provisions of the Punjab 
Regionai and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred 
to as 'the Act of 1995'). The High Court Allowed the writ petitions. Hence, E 
the appeal 
It was contended by the appellant that High Court committed a basic 
error in coming to the conclusion that it was only the Board constituted under 
Section 3 of the Act of 1995 which could select the site for a new town and 
take all necessary action in connection therewith, and further that the F 
selection of a site could be challenged by any person not necessarily an owner 
of land sought to be acquired. It was contended that the Act of 1995 as a 
futuristic legislation providing for modern planning and urban development 
with multi level institutions. According to him Section 14 of the Act which 
laid down the functions of the Board did not mandate that the site of a new G 
town must be selected by the Board. In fact there was no other provision in 
the Act of 1995 to this effect .. Sections 56, 57 and 61 of the Act permitted the 
Government to decide where the new township should be located and the State 
Government was not compelled to confine its choice to locations selected by 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 8 S.C.R. 
A any other authority under the Act. The State Government is not required 
mandatorily to entrust the duty of selection of the site of a new town to the 
Board. In fact under Section 28 of the Act the State Government or the Board 
may entrust any of the authorities to do any work for carrying out the purposes 
of the Act The powers that could be entrusted to the PUDA under Section 28 
B of the Act by the State Government and the Board could also be entrusted to 
the New Town Planning and Development Authority constituted under Section 
31 of the Act. Indeed the State Government had constituted the New Town 
Planning and Development Authority for Anandgarh under Section 31 of the 
Act and therefore it was for the said Town Planning and Development Authority 
,"-,
to select the site and to plan and develop the new township. For this purpose 
c it could request the State Government to acquire lands as provided in Section 
42 of the Act. It was further emphasized that the power of the Board was only 
advisory in nature. The State Government could entrust any work to any of 
the authorities under the Act. Power of the State was not fettered even in the 
matter of selection of site and planning and development of a new township. 
D The Town Planning and Development Authority for Anandgarh was actually 
entrusted to do all this and there was, therefore, no need for the Board to be 
called upon to select the site and take other steps. In fact the New, Town 
Planning and Development Authority for Anandgarh was constituted;under 
Section 31 of the Act of 1995 on May 20, 1999 which recommended the 
acquisition of the lands in question pursuant to which Notifications were 
E issued t1nder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on March i3, 2000. It 
was also submitted that since the functions of PUDA under Section 28 of the 
Act could be entrusted to the Special Urban Planning and Development 
Authority constituted under Section 29 and the New Town Planning and 
Development Authority under Section 31 of the Act of 1995, the Board 
F constituted under Section 3 of the Act did not come into the picture at all. He 
also emphasized the fact that the challenge was to the Notifications issued 
...... 
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act asking not for a writ of mandamus 
but for quashing the Notifications on the ground that

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.