2 decades on, High Court quashes land acquisition for Chandigarh’s third phase

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, January 29

More than two decades after a land acquisition notification was issued for developing Chandigarh’s third phase, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the same, citing among other things a critical flaw in the signing authority.

The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Lalit Batra asserted it was not in dispute that the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was “drawn” to the satisfaction of the UT Administrator. But it was signed by UT Secretary Engineering, Engineering Department.

The Bench also referred to the declaration of law by the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh Brar’s case, where a similar situation arose. The notification, issued in the name of the Administrator, was signed by an adviser, leading to the annulment of further acquisition proceedings.

Drawing parallels to the precedent, the high court declared the land acquisition notification invalid due to impermissible signature by the Secretary Engineering, in violation of the principles laid down by Surinder Singh Brar’s case.

The Bench also took note of UT counsel’s argument that the petitioners had omitted the raising of the issue as a valid ground to challenge the acquisition proceedings concerned in the earlier round of litigation. But law was not required to be pleaded as a ground for a valid onslaught made to defectively launched acquisition proceedings.

The Bench was hearing a bunch of petitions against the Union Territory and other respondents by Shri Anandpur Trust and other petitioners through senior counsel Puneet Bali and Rajesh Garg, with other advocates. In one of the petitions, notification dated May 4, 2000, issued under Section 4 of the Act, declaration issued under Section 6 and award dated March 21, 2003, was challenged for the development of Chandigarh’s third phase.

“This court finds merit in the instant petitions, and, is constrained to allow them. Consequently, all petitions are allowed. The impugned notifications as well as the impugned award are quashed and set aside,” the Bench asserted.

Referring to the provisions of the of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, the Bench added it contemplated the possibility of reacquisition of the land/property where the previous acquisition had lapsed. As such, it was necessary to direct the petitioners to maintain status quo regarding the creation of third party rights to keep the land/property free from all types of encumbrances.

Cites flaw in signing authority

The court said it was not in dispute that the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was ‘drawn’ to the satisfaction of the UT Administrator. But it was signed by UT Secretary, Engineering