Holding

The Court held that the acquisition was for a development scheme within Section 52(2)(c) of the Punjab Municipal Act, not a "building scheme" under Section 192, rendering the Section 192 procedure unnecessary, and affirmed the validity of the notifications, municipal fund usage, and the absence of discrimination, leading to dismissal of the appeals.

Summary

The Chandigarh Administration issued notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire lands in Mani Majra for Scheme Nos.2 and 3, which the petitioners challenged on the ground that the acquisition was not for a "building scheme" under Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The Supreme Court examined whether the scheme fell within the definition of a building scheme or merely a development scheme covered by Section 52(2)(c) of the same Act, and whether municipal funds could be used for such acquisition. It also considered the validity of the permission granted under the Punjab Periphery Act, 1952, the adequacy of publication of the notification in the locality, and whether the petitioners were denied a proper opportunity to object under Section 5‑A of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court held that the acquisition was for a development scheme within the ambit of Section 52(2)(c), not a building scheme, and therefore the procedural requirements of Section 192 did not apply; the notifications were validly published, the municipal fund could be applied, and no discrimination was shown. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The acquisition was for a "building scheme" under Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 or a development scheme under Section 52(2)(c).
Whether municipal funds may be applied to land acquisition for the development scheme.
Validity of the permission granted under the Punjab Periphery Act, 1952 for the acquisition.
Whether the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in accordance with statutory requirements.
Whether the petitioners were denied a proper opportunity to object under Section 5‑A of the Land Acquisition Act.
Whether there was discriminatory treatment in the acquisition of lands.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 4, s. 48, s. 5-A
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911s. 192, s. 241, s. 242, s. 243, s. 3, s. 52, s. 52(2)(c), s. 58

Subjects

land acquisitionbuilding schemedevelopment schemePunjab Municipal Actpublic purposemunicipal fundnotification publicationSection 4 Land Acquisition ActSection 192 Punjab Municipal ActSection 52 Punjab Municipal ActPunjab Periphery Actdiscriminationprocedural irregularity

Judgment

..
>-
A RAM KRISHAN MAHAJAN
v. -
UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

JULY 3, 2007

B [B.P. SINGH AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.]

-,
Punjab Municipal Act. 1911:

Sections 192 and 52-Scheme contemplated thereunder~Acquisition
c of lands therefor-Scope-Sections 4 and 5 of the Land Acquisition Act.
1894.

Notifications were issued by the Chandigarh Administration under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The lands were sought to be
D acquired for Scheme Nos.2 and 3 and were spread over eleven Pockets within
the Notified Area of Mani Majra, which has since vested in the Municipal
Corporation of Chandigarh. Pockets..1 to 6 related to Scheme No.2, l\·hile
Pockets 9 to 11 related to Scheme No.3 which has been rejected by the High
Court by its impugned judgment and order. The acquisition proceedings had
been challenged by filing several writ petitions which have been rejected by
E the High Court. Hence, these appeals.

On the basis of contentions advanced by the parties the core issue that
emerged for adjudication was-whether the acquisition is for a "building
scheme" as contemplated under Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act,
F 1911 or whether it is only a development plan for providing better facilities to ·+
the inhabitants of the area by way ofresidential, commercial and medical
facilities which are within the contemplation of Section 52(2)(c) of the Act of ~
1911.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court
G
HELD 1.1. Since the lands being acquired was not for a "building
scheme" under Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, but for a
development plan to provide facilities to the public, such as those within the -\
contemplation of Section 52(2)(c) of the Act, to which the municipal fund could
H be applied. The procedure contemplated under Section 192 of the Act was,
34

t
. -.;'
RAM ~RI SHAN MAHAJAN,.. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

therefore, not required to be followed. tpara 111141-G-HI
35

A
1.2. The objection that the municipal fund could not be applied for
providing residential, commercial and medical facilities is liable to be rejected.
The facilities that a municipality is empowered to pro,·ide under the Act may
involve acquisition of land as it is required for the purpose of the Act and
therefore, it may make a request to the State Government to acquire the lands B
required for the purpose, and bear the cost of acquisition.
(Para 131142-H; 43-AI
y
1.3. Since the denlopment work undertaken by the Notified Area
Committee could be undertaken by it under the pro,·isions of the Punjab
Municipal Act and, therefore, the permission granted under t~e Punjab c
Periphery Act, 1952 is not tainted with illegality. IPara 141143-EJ
1.4. In view of admitted position as regard the issuance of the
Notifications in the official gazette and the publication of the Notifications in
two daily newspapers circulating in the area, wide publicity was given in the
locality by beat of drums on two dates as is evident from the notings in the D
file made contemporaneously many years ago and thus no reason to doubt the
same, the substance of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land
> Acquisition Act had been duly published in the locality in accordance with
the provisions of the Act. IPara 191148-F-H; 49-AI

1.5. Since the permission originally granted under Section 11 of the E
Punjab Periphery Act, 1952 referred to only Pockets I to Ill but the same
were later on converted into six Pockets. Thus, even though six Pockets are
not mentioned in the permission, the three Pockets for which the permission
was granted included the land of the appellant falling under the new Pocket
no. 5. The contemporaneous documents also substantiate the plea of the
respondents that the grant of permission under Section 1 I of the Periphery F
f
Act, 1952 related to the lands ultimately acquired and though, originally there
. were only three Pockets they were subsequently converted into six Pockets,
but the lands remained the same. IPara 15] (143-F-H; 144-DJ

1.6. The discrimination urged by the appellants that the State had not
notified for acquisition lands over which buildings had been erected and, G
therefore, in accordance \\ith the said policy their lands should also ha,·e been
kept out of acquisition as they were the owners in possession of the land in
question, were running their business of lime and limestone on the said land
"" )
for the last more than 25 years, Sales tax numbfr, telephone connection and
house number had been allotted to them, is not sustainable. There existed
good reasons for not acquiring lands over which there stood permanent H
---f-

36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) $ S.C.R.

A structures •1lich had been nised after getting building plans sanctioned from
the concerned authority. The mere fact that the shop was given a number is
not at all relevant .in the facts or the case.
fPara 21, 22 and 241 (49-F-G; SO-C-DI
1.7. The notification for acquisition oflands in Darshani Bagh had been
B earlier quashed by the High Court but on a review petition being filed by the
Chandigarh Administration, the earlier order allowing the writ petition was
recalled and thereafter an award was pronounced by the Land Acquisition
Officer, however, during the interregnum or about 10 years from the date.or
issuance of Notification under Section 4 or the Act many constructions had Y
come up on a portion orthe acquired land. It was under these circumstances"'
C that those lands were exempted from acquisition in exercise or powers
conferred by Section 48 of the Act The appellants can't claim parity as some
or the lands had to be released in the peculiar facts or the case and as such
the appellant's plea that in the facts and circumstances his land should also
have been exempted from acquisition has no merit.
(Paras 25 and 271 (SO-G-H; SI-A-Bl
D.
2.1. The question regarding not being given an opportunity to file their
objections under Section S-A orthe Land Acquisition Act and/or failure to
give an opportunity to the parties who had filed objections to represent their
cases before the competent authority, the High Court has considered in detail
the facts or each case and has noticed the fact that the material on record did
E indicate that in many cases notices were given to the parties concerned,
objections were filed and heard and awards declared • The High Court has
elaborately dealt with this issue and has critically scrutinized the evidence
on record and r.ecorded its findings, not a case which requires interference
by this Court on a pure question or fact. (Para 20) f49-B-DJ

f CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2558-2559 of·
2004.

From the Final Judgments and Orders dated 28.4.2003 in CWP No. 3125/
1990 and dated 21.5.2003 in Review Application No. 210/2003 in CWP No.
3125/1990 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
G WITH

C.A. Nos. 2564, 2585, 2588, 2567, 2586, 2561, 2562-2563, 2560, 2565-2566, ...
2555-2556, 2569, 2587, 2510 and 407012004.

A.G. Choudhary, Rajender Sachhar, Mohinderjeet Singh Sethi, Sr. Advs.,
H June Choudhary. Rishi Malhotra, Prem Malhotra, G.C. Garg Dhuriwala, M.P.
RAM KRISHAN MAHAJAN•·. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH (BP. SINGH. J ) 37

---(
Jha. Ram Ekbal Roy, Harshvardhan Jha, Gaura,· Garg Dhuriwala. Anil K. A
. · Chopra. Sudhir Walia. Priank. Mohinder Singh Dahiya. Yash Pal Dhingra.
Balbir Singh Gupta. Seeraj Bagga. Sureshta Bagga. Yakesh Anand. Amit SethL
Nishant Kumar, Sanjeev Anand. Keshav Kaushik, Kailash Chand, R.C. Kohli,
A.P. Mohanty. Arun K. Sinha. Vipin Gogia, G.P. Singh, K.K. Gogna. Jaspreet
Gogia and Madan Gopal Gupta for the Appellant.
B
K. Amareswari. Sr. Adv., Kamini Jaiswal, Shomila Bakshi. Rani Mishra,
Anjani Aiyagari. B. Ramana Murthy. S.N. Terdal. Atul Nanda. Rameeza Hakeem.
'\ Atishi Dipankar and Sanjay Kapur for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
B.P. SINGH, J. 1. In this batch of appeals the common judgment and
order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated April 28, 2003 disposing
of the ~rit Petitions has been assailed. In the Writ Petitions before the High
Court, the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act (for short
'the Act') by issuance of Notifications by the Chandigarh Administration
D
under Section 4 thereof had been challenged which has been rejected by the
~ High Court by its impugned judgment and order. The lands were sought to
be acquired for Scheme Nos.2 and 3 and were spread over eleven Pockets
within the Notified Area of Mani Majra, which has since vested in the·
Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh. Pockets I to 6 related to Scheme No.2,
while Pockets 9 to 11 related to Scheme No.3. E
2. It is not disputed that so far as Pocket Nos.1 to 6 are concerned. the
Notifications under Section 4 of the Act were issued on different dates
_between May 25, 1989 and October 12, 1989. It is also not disputed that
several awards have been made and many of the land owners have received
+- the compensation awarded, but the appellants herein have challenged the F
acquisition proceedings, mainly on two grounds. namely that in the absence
.. of a 'building scheme' framed under Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act,
1911 no land could be acquired under the provisions of the Act for the
purposes of the Scheme. Secondly, the appellants chall~nged the proceedings
on the ground that the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was not G
published in the manner required, and in particular on the ground that there
was no publication of the substance of the Notification under Section 4 of
) the Act in the locality. A few background facts may be noticed at the
threshold:

H

'
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2007) 8 S.C.R.

A 3. The Mani Majra Gram Panchayat was declared a Notified Area under
Section 241 of the Punjab Municipal Act. 1911 on August 19, 1973. By
Notification dated June 11. 1976. issued under Section 242 of the Act of 1911
certain provisions of the Act of 1911 such as Sections 3. 53, 58, and 192 were
extended to the Mani Majra Notified Area. Section 243 of the Act of 1911
B provides as follows:-

"243. Application of Act to notified area.-For the purposes of any
section of this Act which may be extended to a notified area the
committee appointed for such area under section 242 shall be deemed >
to be a municipal committee under this Act and the area to be a
C municipality".

It was urged before the High Court that without framing building scheme
under Section 192 of the Act of 1911, the acquisition of the land for residential-
cum-commercial complex (Scheme No.2 of the Notified Area Committee) could
not be said to be for a public purpose and was contrary to law. It was argued
D .that though the definition of"public purpose" under the Act included, under
Section 3(f)(vii), the provision of land for any other scheme or development
sponsored by Government, or with the prior approval of the apf)ropriate
government, by a local authority, in the context of the Act of 1911 it must
mean a "building plan" contemplated by Section 192 of the Act of 1911. Since
such a plan was never prepared by the Notified Area under Section 192, in
E the absence of a valid "building Scheme". no land could be acquired for that 1

purpose.

4. Section 58 of the Act of 1911 provides for acquisition of land under
the Act at the request of the Committee. It reads as under:-

F "58. Acquisition of land-When any land. whether within or without
the limits of a municipality, is required for the purposes of this Act,
the [State] Government may, at the request of the committee, proceed
to acquire it un~er the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
and on payment by the committee of the compensation awarded under
that Act, and of any other charges incurred in acquiring the land, the
G
land shall vest in the committee.

E.r:planation-:When any land is required for a new street or for the
improvement of an existing street, the commiHee may proceed to
acquire, in addition to the land to be occupied by the street, the land
necessary for the sites of the buildings to be erected on both sides
H
RAM KRISHA!' MAHAJAN"· UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B.P. SINGH, J.J 39

of the street and such land shall be deemed to be required for the A
purposes of this Act'".

5. It was. therefore, argued before the High Court that the municipal
fund could be utilized only for the purposes contemplated by Section 52 of
the Municipal Act of 19 l l. Since the Scheme was not a "building scheme"
under Section 192 of the Act of 19 l l, the Mani Majra Notified Area could not B
be burdened with the cost of acquisition of land.

6. On the contrary, the respondents submitted that the Scheme in
question was not a 'building scheme· under Section 192 of the Act of 1911.
It was a development scheme with a view to provide facilities to the general
public by providing for residential and commercial accommodation, and multi- c
speciality hospital, and was therefore clearly covered by Section 52(2)(c) of
the Act of 1911. It was clearly a public purpose under Section 3(f)(vii) of the
Act.

7. The High Court rejected the contention of the petitioners. It noticed D
that earlier similar Writ Petitions involving identical questions had been
dismissed. It observed:-

"It is further pointed out that identical questions were raised in respect
of acquisition of pocket Nos.9. 10 and 11 which was sought to be
made by publication of notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act on E
24.6.1990. The said acquisition was the subject matter in C.W.P. No.12936
of 1991 whereas acquisition of land in pursuance of notification dated
9/10.8.1990 was the subject matterof challenge in C. W.P. No.14898 of
199 l. The writ petitions challenging these acquisition procee~ings
were dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 20.1.1992
in Prem Singh and Ors. v. Union Territory. Chandigarh. (1992) 2 PLR F
370, and Letters Patent Appeal against the said judgment was also
dismissed by the Division Bench on 11.3.1998. Another bunch of 30
writ petitions wherein notifications dated 28.6.1990, 31.1.1992 etc. under
section 4 was dismissed by the Division Bench on 22.9.1995. The
detailed order was passed in C.W.P. 2126of1993, Panap Chand and G
Ors. v. Union Territory. Chandigarh and Ors .. It was thus contended
that since identical questions of law and fact have already been
adjudicated upon by a Division Bench of this Court in respect of the
)
similar acquisition proceedings, therefore, the present writ petitions
are liable to be dismissed".
H
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20071 8 S.C.R.

A 8. The High Court also noticed the finding of the Division Bench in
Prem Singh's case which is as follows:-

"'The final argument of Mr. Ram Swaroop is purely a legal submission.
It has been argued that as no scheme had been framed as envisaged
under Section 192 ·of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1976 (hereinafter
B called the Punjab Act) the land could not be acquired for the purpose.
It has also been contended that the land could be acquired only for
the purpose of the NAC and Union Territory, Administration coul~
not notify the same. We have considered these arguments in the light
of the averments in the reply. It is the conceded case that no building
scheme has been framed as per the provisions of Section 192 of the
c Punjab Act but the respondents .have categorically stated that the .
1
scheme for which the land had been acquired, is not a scheme within
the meaning of Section 192 of the Punjab Act and the land is being
acquired under the Act for the puri)ose of a Development Scheme for
providing facilities to the residents of'the area'. We are further of the
D opinion that Section 58 of the Punjab Act specifically provides that
the State Govemmentwhich in this case would be the Union Territory
Administration, is fully competent to acquire land for the public
purposes. In the light of these averments, the judgments cited by the
learned counsel, in fact, have no bearing in th.e case in hand".

E 9. The core issue therefore is whether the acquisition is for a "building
scheme" as contemplated und :r Section 192 of the Act of 1911, or whether
it is only a development plan for providing better facilities to the inhabitants
ofthe area by way of residential, commercial and medical facilities which are
within the contemplation of Section 52(2Xc) of the Act. of 1911.
F I 0. This takes us to Section 192 of the Act of 1911, the relevant pan
whereof is reproduced below:-

"192. Building scheme. (I) The committee may, and if so required by
the (Deputy Commissioner] shall, within six months of the date of
such requisition, draw up a building scheme for built areas, and a
G
town planning scheme for unbuilt areas, which may among other
things provide for the following matters, namely:-

(a) the restriction of the erection or re-erection of buildings or any
class of buildings in the whole or any part of the municipality, and of
the use to which they may be put:
H
RAM KRISHAN MAHAJAN v. UNION TERRITORY Of CHANDIGARH [B.P. SINGH. J.) 41

(b) the prescription of a building line on either side or both sides A ~
of any street existing or proposed : and

(c) the amount of land in such unbuilt area which shall be
transferred to the committee for public purposes including use as
public streets by owners of land either on payment of compensation
or otherwise, provided that the total amount so transferred shall not B
exceed [thirty-five percent] and the amount transferred without
payment shall not exceed [seventy-five per cent]. of any one owner's
land within [such unbuilt area].

(2) When a scheme has been drawn up under the provis.ions of
sub-section (I) the com~ittee shall given public notice of such scheme C
and shall at the same time intimate a date not less than thirty days
from the date of such notice by which any person may submit to the
committee in writing any objection or suggestion with regard to such
schemes which he may wish to make.

(3) .The committee shall consider every objection or suggestion D
with regard to the scheme which may be received by the date intimated
under the provisions of sub-section (2) and may modify the scheme
in consequence of any such objection or suggestion and shall then
forward such scheme as originally drawn up or a_s modified to the
[Deputy Commissioner], who may, if he thinks fit, return it to the E
committee for reconsideration and resubmission by a specified date;
and the [Deputy Commissioner], shall submit the plans as forwarded,
or as resubmitted, as the case may be, with his opinion to the [State]
Government, who may sanction such scheme or may refuse to sanction
it, or may return it to the committee for reconsideration and resubmission
by a specified date". F
11. We have no do.ubt that if the lands were be~ng acquired for a
"building scheme" as contemplated by Section 192, the acquisition could not
be made under the provisions of the Act unless such a scheme was validly
framed after following the prescribed procedure, and was duly sanctioned by
the State Government. But it appears to us that the High Court was right in G
coming to the conclusion that this was not a "building scheme" under Section
192, but merely a development plan to provide facilities to the pu~lic, such
) as those within the contemplation of Section 52(2)(c) of the Act of 1911, to
which the municipal fund could be applied. It was, therefore, not required to
follow the procedure under Section 192 of the Act of 1911. H:
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 8 S.C.R.

A 12. The relevant part of Section 52 reads as follo\\·s:-

-52.

(l)
B

(2) Subject to the charges specified in sub-section (I) and to such
rules as the [State] Government may make with respect to the priority
to be given to the several duties of the committee, the municipal fund
C shall be applicable to the payment in whole or in part, of the charges
and expenses incidental to the following matters within the municipality,
and with· the sanction of the [State Government] outside the
municipality, namely:-

D

'.
(c) the construction, establishment and maintenance of schools,
hospitals and dispensaries, and other institutions for the promotion
of education or for the benefit of the public health, and of rest-
E houses, sarais, poor-houses. markets, [stalls], encamping grounds,
pounds, and othf rs works of public utility, and the control and
administration of public institutions of any of these descriptions :

F

G
(I) all acts and things which are likely to promote the safety, health,
welfare or convenience of the inhabitants or expenditure whereon may
. be declared by the committee, with the sanction of the [State]
Government to be an appropriate charge on the municipal fund".
-
13. The objection that the municipal fund could not be applied for
providing residential, commercial and medical fa~ilities must be rejected. The
facilities that a municipality is empowered to provide under the Act may
involve acquisition of land as it is required for the purpose of the Act and
H
RAM KRISHAN MAHAJAN,._ UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B.P. SINGH. J) 43

therefore. it may make a request to the State Government to acquire the lands A·
required for the purpose. and bear the cost of acquisition.

14. In view of our above finding the submission urged before us on the
basis of the provisions of the Punjab Periphery Act, 1952 must also be
rejected. It was submined that the Punjab Periphery Act, 1952 was enacted
with a view to prevent gro\\1h of slums and ramshackle construction on the B
lands lying on the periphery of the new city of Chandigarh. This was considered
necessary to ensure healthy and planned development of the new city. The
Periphery Act, therefore. empowered the State Government to declare the
whole or the part of the area to which the Act extended to be a "controlled
area·• for the purpose of the Act. Once the "controlled area·· was declared.
no person could erect or re-erect any building or make or extend any excavation
c
etc. in the "controlled area" save·in accordance with the plans and restrictions
and with the previous permission of the Deputy Commissioner in writing. It
is not disputed before us that the necessary permission under the Periphery
Act, 1952 has been granted for raising the structures in question. It was,
however, argued before us that permission could not be granted to the D
Notified Area Committee. which is deemed to be a Municipality. for a purpose
which cannot be undertaken by the Notified Area Committee. Since the
Municipality cannot develop a residential, commercial or institutional area,
and spend municipal funds over them, the permission could not have been
granted. We find no substance in the argument in view of our finding that
the development work undertaken by the Notified Area Committee could be
E
undertaken by it under the provisions of the Punjab· Municipal Act and,
therefore, the permission granted under the Punjab Periphery Act 1952 is not
tainted with illegality.

15. It was argued in Civil Appeal Nos. 2558-2559 of2004 arising out of F
~
Writ Petition) ©No. 3125 of 1990 that the permission granted on January 2,
1989 under Section 11 of the Punjab Periphery Act, 1952 referred to only
Pockets I to III and there was no reference to Pocket No.5. Therefore, so far
as the lands falling in Pocket No.5 are concerned, there was no valid permission
to raise the impugned structures. This point does not appear to have been
raised before the High Court. However, there is material on record to support G
the contention of respondents that originally the area was divided into three
pockets, namely Pocket numbers I. II and III. It was only later that three
Pockets were converted into six Pockets. In this connection we may refer to .
r

the affidavit filed before this Court by the Land Acquisition Collector wherein
it was stated that Pocket Nos. L II and III were later on converted into six
H
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 8 S.C .R.

A Pockets vide Memo No.564 l-UTFl(l)-88/34 dated January 2, 1989 and Memo
No.3/l 17/88/UTF1(4)'."88/245 dated January 6, 1989. Thus. even though six
Pockets are not mentioned in the pennission, the three Pockets for which the
permission was granted included the land of the appellant. The appellant
himself in his writ petition has reproduced the proposal made by the Notified
B Area Committee for acquisition of land wherein it was stated that the land
measuring 21 acres, 57 acres and 67 acres respectively in Pocket Nos. I, II,
and Ill should be acquired. The appellant has also referred to the Resolution
of the Notified Area Committee wherein it is stated that ~ccording to the
actual measurement and Akash Shajra. the total area under Pocket No.I was
found to be 30-21 acres, Pocket No.II, 54-91 acres and Pocket No.Ill, 75-67
C acres. Thus the total area acquired was 160-87 acres instead of 145 acres and
accordingly the Committee unanimously accorded its sanction for acquisition
of land measuring 160-67 acres. The contemporaneous documents, therefore,
substantiate the plea of the respondents that the grant of permission under
Section 11 of the Periphery Act, 1952 related to the lands ultimately acquired
and though, originally there were only three Pockets they were subsequently
D converted into six Pockets, but the lands remained the same, though on actual
measurement it was found that there was a difference of about 15 acres. The
appellant has not produced any material to satisfy the Court that his land was
not included in the original three Pockets in respect of which the pennission
had been granted by the competent authority under the Punjab Periphery Act.
E I 952. We, therefore; find no merit in the submission that no permission had
been granted under Section 11 of the Punjab Periphery Act, 1952 relating to
· the land of the appellant.

I 6. This takes us to the next question urged by some of the appellants
····.·.that the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was
F · not published in the manner prescribed by Section 4 of the Act. The grievance
·.. of the appellants in particular is that the substance of the Notification had
not been given at conyenient places in the locality. There is no dispute with
regard to the issuance of the Notifications in the official gazette and the
publication of the Notifications in two Ciaily newspapers circulating in the
G area. The case 6f.tM respondents is that the Notification was given due
publicity in the lo~ality by beat of drums on June 3 and June 4, 1989. The
assertion of the respondents was challenged by the appellants and C.M. No.
4235 filed on March 30, 1990 with the prayer that the respondents be directed
to produce the entire record, specially the documents evidencing the publicity
by beat of drums in the locality. However, the said application was ordered
H to be heard with the main case which unfortunately came up for hearing many
RAM KRIS HAN MAHAJAN v. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B.P. SINGH, J.J 45

years later in the year 2003. A
17. An affidavit of the Land Acquisition Officer dated March 23, 2003
was filed before the High Court wherein it was admitted that the original
record pertaining to the acquisition of land in various pockets of the revenue
estate of Mani Majra was not traceable and an inquiry had been initiated in
the matter. Some officials of the Administration as well as the Municipal B
Corporation had been suspended. It was explained that when an application
was filed for early hearing of the writ petitions and a search was made for the
original record pertaining to the acquisition of lands in various pockets, it was
found that the record was not traceable despite concerted efforts. The following
records in particular could not be traced out :- C
"(i) Original record regarding publication in the official gazette and
newspapers in respect to Pocket No.2, 9, I 0 and 11. The record
regarding publication in the locality with regard to Pocket No.1-6 and
9-11 is also not available.

(ii) The original Rapat Roznamachas pertaining to the above are not D
traceable.
(iii) The original objections and notices under section 5-A are not
available except Pocket No. I I.
(iv) Original record pertaining to the presence of the objectors at the E
time of hearing of objections under section 5-A is also missing".

However, one file pertaining to the said acquisition was traced out in
the office of the Finance Secretary, UT containing I to 518 pages of which
pages I to 83 contained the notings. Paragraph 6 to 12 of the affidavit of the
Land Acquisition Officer are sfgnificant and we reproduce them below : - F
"6. That the above mentioned file contains two reports dated 22.8.1989
and 11.9.1989 by the Assistant Estate Officer (exercising the powers
of the Land Acquisition Officer, Notified Area Committee, Mani Majra),
Chandigarh. In these reports pertaining to Pocket Nos.1-6, it is clearly
mentioned that opportunity of hearing as envisaged in the Land G
Acquisition Act had been given to the interested persons on I 0.8.1989
and 23.8.1989, respectively. These reports are available in the file at
Page No. 71 and 113 and the list of objections filed by 18 objectors and
" ) 90 objectors respectively are available from Page 87 to 90 and 123 to
129. Photocopy of these two reports is annexed as Annexure 'I' and H
'II'.
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.

A 7. That report dated 15. l.1990 pertaining to Pocket No.3 to 5 sent b~
the Assistant Estate Officer, exercising the powers of the Land
Acquisition Officer, Notified Area Committee, Mani Majra is available
in the file on page No.246-24 7 and the details of the objections filed
are available at page 254-255. As per his report, hearing was given on
9. l.1990. Photocopy of this report alongwith its enclosures is annexed
B as Annexure 'III'.

8. That the officer who had submitted the report i.e. Shri D.V. Bhatia
who has since retired has been contacted and inquiries made from
him. An affidavit of Shri D.V. Bhatia, wherein he has stated that
opportunity of personal hearing was given by him to the interested
c persons and proper procedure as envisaged in the Land Acquisition
Act was followed is annexed as Annexure 'IV'.

9. That the Patwari, Notified Area, Mani Majra at the relevant time
namely Shri Som Nath (since retired) was also contacted. He has
revealed that he was posted as Patwari, Notified Area Committee,
D
Mani Majra from July 1989 till November, 1993. During this period,
notifications under section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act
pertaining to Pockets No. I-~ and Pocket No.9-11 were issued. The
record pertaining to the publication (original information) and entries
in the Rapat Roznamchas remains with the revenue Patwari.
E
10. That as submitted above, the only record pertaining to this
acquisition is in the shape of file mentioned above. The report dated
15. l.1990 clearly shows that the objections were heard by the then
Land Acquisition Officer and opportunity of personal hearing was
given on 9.1.1990. The original objections filed by the Petitioner is
F also on the record of this file at page No.272-285. The affidavit ofShri
D.V. Bhatia also shows that an opportunity of personal hearing had
been given to the Petitioners. On the very file at page 286, a notice
dated 2. l. l 990 is there, wherein the Petitioner Ram Krishan Mahajan
has been asked to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer on
9.1.1990 at 11.00 a.m. in the Estate Office Building, Sector 17,
G Chandigarh for personal hearing. Photocopy of the notice dated
2.1.l990 is annexed as Annexure 'V'.

11. That the award files pertaining to the Pocket No.1-6 and 9-11
\
which are subject matter of the case and connected cases except the '-

file pertaining to Pocket No.3 are available.
H
RAM KRISHAN MAHAJAN v. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B.P. SINGH, J.J 47

12. That in respect of Pocket No. I, the available record includes the A
award file and the report by the then Land Acquisition Officer dated
22.8.1989 in respect to the objections under section 5-A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 on Page 75 of the file received from the office
of the Finance Secretary, UT, Chandigarh. The record pertaining to the
publication in the official gazettee and publication in the newspapers B
is also available in this file".

18. The High Court has taken notice of the fact that the relevant files
were missing when the matter came up for hearing before the Court. The High
., Court however, found that no case for interference was made out by the
appellants. It recorded its conclusion in the following words :- C
"However, dispute in the present case is, whether the substance of
the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the
locality and, whether such publication satisfies the requirement of
Section 4 of 1894 Act? The counsel for the petitioners have relied
upon noting sheet dated 1.6.1989 whereby Secretary, Notified Area D
Committee, Mani Majra had directed Sanitary Inspector to. cause wide
publicity of the notification in the locality through beat of drum on
).
1.6.1989. The Sanitary inspector has endorsed that wide publicity in
respect of notification had been given through beat of drum by •.
Banarsi Dass, Catsman on 3.6.1989 & 4.6, 1989. The said noting sheet ·
has been seen by the Secretary Notification Area Committee and E
placed to file. The grievance to such manner of publication is that
there is no valid authorisation by the Collector to cause the substance
of the notification published through Secretary, Notified Area
Cominittee, Mani Majra or by Sanitary Inspector. Still further, the
publication is allegedly made by a Cartsman who is neither a public F
servant nor shown to be competent to carry out the requirement of
the publication by beat of drum.

The reliance of the counsel for the petitioners on the provisions
of Section 4 of 1894 Act that "the Collector shall cause public notice
of the substance or said notification to be given at the convenient G
pl&ces of the locality" is not tenable. The Collector contemplateJ
under Section 9 of 1894 Act is one defined under Section 3(c) of 1894
Act which means that the Collector of the District and includes the
) Deputy Commissioner and any officer specially appointed by the
/
Appropriate Government to perform the functions of the Collector
under the said Act. The Collector is the agent of the State Government H
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 8 S.C.R.

A competent to acquire land for the State Government. One or other
official can cause the publication of the substance of the notification y

in the locality. It is not necessary that the Collector has to personally
authorise the publication by beat of drum. It is the publication of the
substance in the locality which is a material factor so as to invite the
attention of the interested persons towards the intention of the
B Government to acquire the land. No rule, provision or instructions
were brought to our notice that the procedure of beat of drum has to
be carried out only by a public servant. As a matter of fact, such
ministerial functions can be performed by any one authorised by the
competent authority. The beat of drum is not a process requiring
c special skill and, thus, the arguments raised by the counsel for the
petitioners are misconceived, in any case, the defects pointed out by f
the petitioners can at best be called an irregularity which. does not '
vitiate the publication of the notification.
Thus, we are of the opinion that the substance of the notification
D was published in the locality in accordance. with the provisions of
Section 4of1894 Act. In CWP No. 2126of1983, Partap Chand's case •

(supra). an argument was raised on the basis of the affidavit filed by
I
Dayal Singh who, as per the State, carried out the process of beat of
·\
l
drum. Dayal Singh having denied any such process by way of filing
~
affidavit, the Court negatived the contentions of the writ petitioners I
E on the ground that it was the positive stand of the petitioners that >.
notifications under Section 4 & 6 of 1894 Act had not been published ·'
in the newspaper."
19. It will thus appear that the finding recorded by the High Court is

F
based on the documents relied upon by the appellants themselves. The note
sheet dated June l, 1989 clearly stated that the Sanitary Inspector had been
directed to cause wide publicity of the Notification by beat of drums on June
~
l, 1989 and had later endorsed that wide publicity had been given by Banarsi
Dass, cartsman on June 3, ·1989 and June.4, 1989. The High Court rightly
)
rejected the submission that there was no valid authorization since the cartsman
G was not a public servant. The High Court has rightly observed that the fact
that the cartsman was not a public servant was not relevant. What was
t
relevant was that due publicity had been given in the locality by beat of
drums on two dates, namely on 3rd June and 4th June, 1989. There is no
I
f
reason for us to doubt the notings in the file made contemporaneously many \
yeari ago. We, therefore, affirm the finding of the High Court that the substance f::
H of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act had
,--
RAM KRISHAN MAHAJAN v. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B.P. SINGH, J .] 49

been duly published in the locality in accordance with the provisions of the A
Act.

20. The next submission urged on behalf of the appellants before the
High Court was with regard to their not being given an opportunity to file
their objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act and/or failure
to give an opportunity to the parties who had filed objections to represent B
their cases before the competent authority. The High Court has considered
in detail the facts of each case. We have also heard the parties at length only
:~,
to satisfy ourselves about the reasonableness of the findings of fact recorded
by the High Court on consideration of the evidence on record. We find
ourselves in agreement with the High Court that the grounds urged on behalf
of the appellants are untenable. The High Court has noticed the fact that the
c
materjal on record did indicate that in many cases notices were given to the
parties concerned, objections were filed and heard and awards declared. The
·.report of the Land Acquisition Collector in some cases is also on record. The
objections filed by some of the appellants were also before the High Court.
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal appearing on behalf of the Union Territory of Chandigarh D
and the Notified Area Committee also took us to the evidence on record and
we are satisfied that this is not a case which requires interference by this
Court on a pure question of fact. The High Court has elaborately dealt with
the submissions urged before it, has critically scrutinized the evidence on
record and recorded its findings. Having heard counsel for the parties at
E
length, we are satisfied that no interference is called for by this Court.

21. It was urged by the appellant in Civil Appeal No.2567 of 2004 that
the High Court failed to consider the question raised by him in the special
facts of his case. He submitted that the State had not notified for acquisition
lands over which buildings had been erected and, therefore, in accordance F
with the said policy his land should also have been kept out of acquisition.

22. In the writ petition the petitioners (there were three petitioners
before the High Court) averred that they were the owners in possession of
the land in question. They were running their business of lime and limestone
on the said land for the last more than 25 years. Sales tax number, telephone G
connection and house number had been allotted to them. It was also averred
that some similar shops which had been constructed on Khasra Nos. I 00/29/
30/31/32/34 were left out of acquisition, which showed that a pick and choose
)
method had been adopted by the Government. According to the petitioners

H
---~~

50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.

A 'those shops were like that of the petitioners and similarly siruated. ....
23. In the objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act the appellant
had stated that he had constructed a house and a building in which he was
running a business of lime and limestone and that the structure on the land
had been given a number by the N.A.C., namely No.1989. It does, therefore,
B appear from the averments made in the writ petition read with the objections
under Section 5-A of the Act that over the land in question the appellant had
been carrying on lime and limestone business. His grievance is that some
other similar shops located on similar land were not acquired. ~-

c it was24.denied
In the reply filed on behalfofthe respondents before the High Court
that any pick and choose method had been adopted. It was
asserted that on Khasra Numbers in question construction had been raised
prior to the issuance of Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. In
fact those constructions existed even prior to the formation of the Notified
Area Committee, Mani Majra. The constructions were raised after getting
D building plans sanctioned from the erstwhile Panchayat Committee. It was in
these circumstances that those Khasra Numbers were kept out of acquisition.

25. We find that the respondents had good reasons for not acquiring
lands over which there stood permanent structures which had been raised
after getting building plans sanctioned from the concerned authority. The
E appellant has no where averred that he had raised the structure after getting
a building plan duly sanctioned by the concerned authority. The mere fact
that the shop was given a number is not at all relevant in the facts of the case.

26. Learned counsel then argued that some lands which had been earlier
notified for acquisition have been released by the Government as late as on
F 9th January, 2004 exercising its powers under Section 48 of the Act. This fact
-i
by itself does not justify the conclusion that there was discrimination in the
matter of acquisition of land. It appears from the Notification produced before
us that some of the lands in Darshani Bagh had to be released in the peculiar
facts of the case. It appears that the Notification for acquisition had been
G earlier quashed by the High Court on August 11, 1997 but on a review petition
being filed by the Chandigarh Administration, the earlier order allowing the
writ petition was recalled on January 31, 2003 and thereafter an award was
pronounced by the Land Acquisition Officer on March 5, 2003. During the
:
interregnum of about 10 years from the date of issuance of Notification under ' \
Section 4 of the Act many constructions had come up on a portion of the
H acquired land. It was under these circumstances that those lands were exempted

j
I ,,
·,..
RAM KRISHAN MAHAJAN v. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B.P. SINGH, J.J 5}

from acquisition in exercise of powers conferred by Section 48 of the Act. A
27. We have considered the facts of the case and the material placed
before us, since the issue raised before us was not argued before the High
Court in the manner it was argued before us. That is why we find no categoric
finding of the High Court on this issue. However, after considering the
material on record we are satisfied that the appellant's plea that in the facts B
and circumstances his land should also have been exempted from acquisition
has no merit.

28. We, therefore, find no merit in these appeals and they are accordingly
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
c
29. I.A. Nos.2 and 3 in Civil Appeal No.2567 of2004 are dismissed. I.A.
No.4 in Civil Appeal No.2569 of2004 is rejected but without prejudice to the
right of the applicant to seek remedy, if any, in accordance with law before
the appropriate forum.

B.K. Appeals dismissed .

. I