Supreme Court of India
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2012 INSC 463
- Decided
- 11 October 2012
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- G S SINGHVI
Holding
The power to sanction land acquisition in a Union Territory rests exclusively with the Administrator, and any delegation to an Adviser is invalid; furthermore, a declaration under Section 6(1) is void if the LAO’s report fails to objectively consider objections under Section 5A(2).
Summary
The case concerned the acquisition of about 105 acres of land in Manimajra, Chandigarh for the expansion of the Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park (Phase III). The acquisition was approved by the Adviser to the Administrator of the Union Territory based on reports of the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), which the petitioners alleged were prepared without objectively considering their objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners also contended that the Adviser lacked jurisdiction to sanction the acquisition and that the stated public purpose was vague and contrary to environmental and periphery control statutes. The Supreme Court held that, under Article 239 of the Constitution and the series of presidential notifications, only the Administrator of a Union Territory may exercise the power of the "appropriate Government" under the Land Acquisition Act, and the 1988 delegation to the Adviser does not extend to this power, especially after the 1989 superseding notification. Moreover, the LAO’s reports were found to be vitiated for failing to consider objections, rendering the satisfaction required under Section 6(1) invalid. Consequently, the Court set aside the acquisition notifications and quashed the land acquisition proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the Adviser to the Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh had the jurisdiction to approve land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether the delegation of powers under the Chandigarh (Delegation of Powers) Act, 1987 permitted the Adviser to exercise the powers of the appropriate Government.
- Whether the reports prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 5A(2) were vitiated due to non‑consideration of objections filed by landowners.
- Whether the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was valid in the absence of proper consideration and satisfaction.
- Whether the public purpose specified in the acquisition notifications satisfied the statutory definition under the Act.
Legislation cited
Subjects
land acquisitionUnion Territorydelegation of powerspublic purposeenvironmental lawSection 5ASection 6Article 239administrative lawprocedural fairness
Judgment
[2012] 12 S.C.R. 1077
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos.7454-59 of 2012 )
OCTOBER 11, 2012
B
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss.4, SA and 6 - Land
Acquisition in Union Territory of Chandigarh - Power of the C
Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh to sanction
acquisition - Held: Acquisition of land for and on behalf of
Union Territories must be sanctioned by the Administrator of
the particular Union Territory - No other officer competent to
exercise the power vested in 'the appropriate Government' D
under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder - Nothing in
language of s.3(1) of the 1987 Act from which it can be inferred
that the Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh
could delegate the power exercisable by 'the appropriate
Government' under the Act which was specifically entrusted E
to him by the President u!Article 239(1) of the Constitution -
Notification dated 14.8.1989 was issued u!Article 239(1) in
supersession of all previous notifications relating to the
exercise of power and functions under the Act by the
Administrators of various Union Territories - Therefore, even F
if it is assumed that vide Notification dated 25.2.1988 (issued
u/s.3(1) of the 1987 Act), the Administrator of the Union
Territory of Chandigarh had authorised its Advisor to exercise
the power of 'the appropriate Government' under the Act, after
issuance of Notification dated 14.8.1989, the said delegation G
will be deemed to have ceased insofar as the exercise of
power of 'the appropriate Government' vnder the Act and the
Rules framed thereunder is concerned - In absence of fresh
1077 H
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 12 S.C.R.
A delegation by the Administrator, the Advisor could not have
exercised the power of the appropriate Government - The
Advisor to the Administrator of the Union Territory of
Chandigarh was not competent to accord approval to initiation
of the acquisition proceedings or take decision on the reports
B submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) u/s.5A(2) and
record his satisfaction that the land was needed for the
specified public purpose - Land Acquisition (Companies)
Rules, 1963 - Chandigarh (Delegation of Powers) Act, 1987
- s.3(1) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 239.
c
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.5A - Acquisition of land
- Procedural safeguards - Reports prepared by the Land
Acquisition Officer (LAO) u/s.5A(2) - If vitiated due to non-
consideration of the objections filed by the landowners - Held:
0 LAO made misleading and false statement about his having
seen the revenue records and conducted spot inspection -
That apart, the reports of LAO did not contain any iota of
consideration of the objections filed by the landowners - Mere
reproduction of the substance of the objections cannot be
E equated with objective consideration thereof - Violation of the
mandate of s.5A(2) writ large on the face of the reports
prepared by the LAO - LAO failed to discharge the statutory
duty cast upon him to prepare a report after objectively
considering the objections filed u/s.5A(1) and submissions
F made by the objectors during the course of personal hearing
- The hearing required to be given uls.5A(2) to a person who
is sought to be deprived of his land and who has filed
objections u/s.5A(1) must be effective and not an empty
formality.
G The questions which arose for consideration in the
present appeals in respect of the land acquisition in
question in the Union Territory of Chandigarh were, (i)
whether the Advisor to the Administrator of the Union
Territory of Chandigarh had the jurisdiction to approve
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1079
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
the acquisition of the appellants' land; (ii) whether the A
reports prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO)
under Section 5A(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
were vitiated due to non-consideration of the objections
filed by the landowners and the same could not be made
basis for deciding whether the land was really needed for B
the particular public purpose
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. By notification dated 1.11.1966, the
President generally delegated the powers and functions C
of the State Government under various laws in force
immediately before 1.11.1966 to the Administrator. By all
other notifications, the power exercisable by 'the
appropriate Government' under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 and the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 D
were delegated to the Administrator. With a view to avoid
any possibility of misuse of power by the executive
authorities, it has been repeatedly ordained that powers
and functions vested in 'the appropriate Government'
under the Act and the 1963 Rules shall be exercised only E
by the Administrator. The seriousness with which the
Central Government has viewed such type of acquisition
is also reflected from the decision taken by the Home
Minister on 23.9.2010 in the context of the report of the
Special Auditor and the One-Man Committee. Thus, the F
acquisition of land for and on behalf of Union Territories
must be sanctioned by the Administrator of the particular
Union Territory and no other officer is competent to
exercise the power vested in 'the appropriate
Government' under the Act and the Rules framed G
thereunder. [Para 41) [1150-C-D, F-H; 1151-A-BJ
1.2. Vide Notification dated 25.2.1988 issued under
Section 3(1) of the Chandigarh (Delegation of Powers)
Act, 1987, the Administrator directed that any power, H
1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A authority or jurisdiction or any duty which he could
exercise or discharge by or under the provisions of any
law, rules or regulations as applicable to the Union
Territory of Chandigarh shall be exercised or discharged
by the Advisor except in cases or class of cases
B enumerated in the Schedule. There is nothing in the
language of Section 3(1) of the 1987 Act from which it can
be inferred that the Administrator can delegate the power
exercisable by 'the appropriate Government' under the
Act which was specifically entrusted to him by the
C President under Article 239(1) of the Constitution.
Therefore, notification dated 25.2.1988 cannot be relied
upon for contendinQ that the Administrator had delegated
the power of 'the appropriate Government' to the Adviser.
[Para 42] [1151-B-E]
D
1.3. The issue deserves to be considered from
another angle. Whlle delegating the power, authority or
jurisdiction vested in him by or under any law, rules or
regulations as applicable to the Union Territory of
E Chandigarh, the Administrator had used the expression
'on the date of this notification'. This necessarily lmplles
that the power of 'the appropriate Government' conferred
upon or entrusted to the Administrator by the President
under Article 239(1) after 25.2.1988 were not delegated to
F the Adviser. It Is also apposite to note that Notification
dated 14.8.1989 was Issued under Article 239(1) In
supersesslon of all previous notifications relating to the
exercise of power and· functions under the Act by the
Administrators of various Union Territories. Therefore,
G even If It Is assumed that vlde Notification dated 25.2.1988
the Administrator had authorised the Adviser to exercise
the power of 'the appropriate Government' under the Act,
after the Issuance of Notification dated 14.8.1989, the said
delegation wlll be deemed to have ceased Insofar as the
H exercise of power of 'the appropriate Government' under
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1081
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
the Act and the Rules framed thereunder is concerned A
and in the absence of fresh delegation by the
Administrator, the Adviser could not have exercised the
power of the appropriate Government and sanctioned the
acquisition of land for the purposes specified in
Notifications dated 26.6.2006 and 2.8.2006 nor could he B
symbolically accept the recommendations of the LAO
and record his satisfaction on the issue of need of land
for the specified public purposes. [Para 43] [1151-E-H;
1152-A-C]
1.4. The Adviser to the Administrator was not
c
competent to accord approval to the initiation of the
acquisition proceedings or take decision on the reports
submitted by the LAO under Section 5-A (2) of the Act and
record his satisfaction that the land was needed for the D
specified public purpose. [Para 44] [1152-C-D]
2.1. A cursory reading of the reports of the LAO may
give an Impression that he had applied mind to the
objections filed under Section 5A(1) and assigned
reasons for not entertaining the same, but a careful E
analysis thereof leaves no doubt that the officer
concerned had not at all applied mind to the objections
of the landowners and merely created a facade of doing
so. In both the reports, the LAO had made a misleading
and false statement about his having seen the revenue F
records and conducted spot Inspection. That apart, the
reports do not contain any Iota of consideration of the
objections filed by the landowners. Mere reproduction of
the substance of the objections cannot be equated with
objective consideration thereof In the light of the G
submission made by the objectors during the course of
hearing. Thus, the violation of the mandate of Section
5A(2) Is writ large on the face of the reports prepared by
the LAO. The reason why the LAO did not apply his mind
to the objections filed by the appellants and other H
1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 12 S.C.R.
A landowners is obvious. He was a minion in the hierarchy
of the administration of the Union Territory of Chandigarh
and could not have even thought of making
recommendations contrary to what was contained in the
letter sent by the Administrator. If he had shown the
B courage of acting independently and made
recommendation against the acquisition of land, he
would have surely been shifted from that post and his
career would have been jeopardized. Therefore, the LAO
cannot be blamed for having acted as an obedient
C subordinate of the superior authorities, including the
Administrator. However, that cannot be a legitimate
ground to approve the reports prepared by him without
even a semblance of consideration of the objections filed
by the appellants and other landowners and thus it is
D held that the LAO failed to discharge the statutory duty
cast upon him to prepare a report after objectively
considering the objections filed under Section 5A(1) and
submissions made by the objectors during the course of
personal hearing. [Paras 45, 46, 47] (1152-F-G; 1153-C-G;
E 1154-A-C]
2.2. The Special Secretary, Finance and the Adviser
to the Administrator also failed to act in consonance with
the mandate of Section 5A(2) read with Section 6(1). They
F could not muster courage of expressing an independent
opinion on the issue of compliance of Section SA and
need of the land for the specified public purposes. The
noting recorded by the Special Secretary, Finance shows
that the officer had virtually reproduced what the
G Administrator had mentioned in his letter dated 31.7.2006.
The Adviser went a step further. He merely appended his
signatures on the note recorded by the Special Secretary,
Finance forgetting that in terms of the aforementioned
two sections 'the appropriate Government' is required to
H take decision after considering the report of the LAO. The
SURI ND ER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1083
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
least which can be said about the manner in which the A
Adviser approved the note prepared by the Special
Secretary, Finance is that there was abject failure on the
part of the concerned officer to discharge his duty
despite the fact that he was entrusted with the onerous
task of taking a decision on behalf of 'the appropriate B
Government' after considering the reports of the LAO. The
casual manner in which the senior o'fficers of the
Chandigarh Administration dealt with the serious issue
of the acquisition of land of citizens signifies their total
lack of respect for the constitutional provision contained C
in Article 300A, the law enacted by Parliament, that is, the
Act and interpretation thereof by the Courts. It seems that
the officers were overawed by the view expressed by the
Administrator and the instinct of self-preservation
prompted them not to go against the wishes of the D
Administrator who wanted that additional land be
acquired in the name of expansion of IT Park despite the
fact that a substantial portion of the land acquired for
Phase II had been allotted to a private developer. [Para
48] [1154-C-H; 1155-A-B] E
2.3. The hearing required to be given under Section
5A(2) to a person who is sought to be deprived of his land
and who has filed objections under Section 5A(1) must be
effective and not an empty formality. The Collector who is
F
enjoined with the task of hearing the objectors has the
freedom of making further enquiry as he may think
necessary. In either eventuality, he has to make report in
respect of the land notifi2d under Section 4(1) or make
different reports in respect of different parcels of such land G
to the appropriate Government containing his
recommendations on the objections and submit the same
to the appropriate Government along with the record of
proceedings held by him for the latter's decision. The
appropriate Government is obliged to consider the report, H
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 12 S.C.R.
A if any, made under Section 5A(2) and then record its
satisfaction that the particular land is needed for a public
purpose. This exercise culminates into making a
declaration that the land is needed for a public purpose
and the declaration is to be signed by a Secretary to the
B Government or some other officer duly authorised to certify
its orders. The formation of opinion on the issue of need
of land for a p'ublic purpose and suitability thereof is sine
qua non for issue of a declaration under Section 6(1). Any
violation of the substantive right of the landowners and/
C or other interested persons to file objections or denial of
opportunity of personal hearing to the objector(s) vitiates
the recommendations made by the Collector and the
decision taken by the appropriate Government on such
recommendations. The recommendations made by the
o Collector without duly considering th.e objections filed
under Section 5A(1) and submissions made at the hearing
given under Section 5A(2) or failure of the appropriate
Government to take objective decision on such objections
In the light of the recommendations made by the Collector
E will denude the decision of the appropriate Government
of statutory finality. To put It differently, the satisfaction
recorded by the appropriate Government that the particular
land is needed for a public purpose and the declaration
made under Section 6(1) wlll be devoid of legal sanctity If
F statutorily engrafted procedural safeguards are not
adhered to by the concerned authorities or there ls violatlon
of the prlnclples of natural justice. The cases herein are
illustrative of flagrant violation of the mandate of Sections
5A(2) and 6(1 ). [Para 58] [1163-E-H; 1154-A·F]
G
2.4. The satisfaction of the appropriate Government
envisaged In Section 6(1) must be preceded by
consideration of the report prepared by the Collector after
considering the objections filed under Section 5A and
H hearing the objectors. This necessarily Implies that the
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1085
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Government must objectively apply its mind to the report A
of the Collector and the objections filed by the
landowners and then take a decision whether or not the
land is needed for the specified public purpose. A
mechanical endorsement of the report of the Collector
cannot be a substitute for the requirement of application B
of mind by the Government which must be clearly
reflected in the record. [Para 61] [1168-F-H; 1169-A]
Nandeshwar Prasad and Anr. v. The State of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors. (1964) 3 SCR 425; State of Punjab v. c
Gurdial Singh (1980) 2 sec 471: 1980 (1) SCR 1011;
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur
Chenai (2005) 7 sec 627: 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 388;
Somawanti v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 151: 1963 SCR
774 and Ganga Bishnu Swaika v. Calcutta Pinjrapole Society D
AIR 1968 SC 615: 1968 SCR 117 - relied on.
Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1975) 4 SCC 285: 1975
(1) SCR 802; Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v.
State of Rajasthan (1993) 2 SCC 662: 1993 (2) SCR 788; E
State of T.N. v. L. Krishnan (1996) 1 SCC 250: 1995 (4)
Suppl. SCR 663; Ajay Krishan Shinghal v. Union of India
(1996) 10 SCC 721: 1996 (4) Suppl. SCR 319; Sooraram
Pratap Reddy v. District Collector, Ranga Reddy. District
(2008) 9 SCC 552: 2008 (13) SCR 126 and Munshi Singh F
v. Union of India (1973) 2 SCC 337: 1973 (1) SCR 973 -
referred to.
3. A reading of the declaratlons issued under Section
6(1) makes it clear that the authority issuing the same was
totally unmlndful of the requirement of the statute. This G
could be the only reason why Instead of recording
satisfaction of the appropriate Government that the land
Is needed for a publlc purpose, the notification uses the
expressions "appears to the Administrator" and "likely to
be needed". This only adds to the casualness with H
1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A which the entire issue of acquisition has been dealt with
by the higher functionaries of the Chandigarh
Administration. [Para 62] [1169-8-C]
4. The High Court has not examined the substantive
8 grounds on which the appellants had challenged the
acquisition of their land with the required seriousness and
failed to notice that the LAO had not at all considered
several objections including those relating to adverse
impact on the environment and ecology of the area raised
c by the landowners and mechanically recommended the
acquisition of land notified under Section 4(1 ), that the
reports of the LAO were not placed before the competent
authority and that even the Advisor had not objectively
considered the reports of the LAO in the light of the
0 objections filed under Section 5A(1) and simply appended
his signatures on the note prepared by the Secretary
(Finance). This omission on the High Court's part has
resulted in miscarriage of justice. [Para 63] [1169-D-F]
5. In the result, the Notifications dated 26.6.2006,
E 2.8.2006 and 28.2.2007 issued by the Chandigarh
Administration under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act are
quashed. [Para 65] [1170-A-B]
Case Law Reference:
F
1975 (1) SCR 802 referred to Para 26
1993 (2) SCR 788 referred to Para 26
1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 663 referred to Para 26
G 1996 (4) Suppl. SCR 319 referred to Para 26
2008 (13) SCR 126 referred to Para 26
1963 SCR 774 relied on Para 26
H 1968 SCR 117 relied on Para 26
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1087
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(1964) 3 SCR 425 relied on Para 55 A
1973. (1) SCR 973 referred to Para 55
1980 (1) SCR 1071 relied on Para 56
2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 388 relied on Para 57 B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
7454-7459 of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.03.2011 of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP Nos. C
5065 of 2007, 6077 of 2008, 11250 of 2007, 5840 of 2008,
9039 of 2007 and 5384 of 2007.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 7460-7463, 7464, 7465, 7466, 7467, 7468, 7469, D
7470, 7471, 7472, 7473, 7474-7475, 7476, 7477, 7478, 7479,
7480, 7481, 7482, 7483, 7484-7485, 7486, 7487 and 7489
of 2012.
Rakesh Khanna, ASG, Rakesh Dwivedi, Dinesh Dwivedi,
Neeraj Kumar Jain, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, T.S. Doabia, T. E
Srinivasa Murthy, Senthil Jagadeesan, Pankhuri Bhardwaj,
Sansriti Pathak, S. Janani, Prateek Dwivedi, Sanjay Singh,
Ugra Shankar Prasad, D.M. Nargolkar, Anil K. Jha, Chhaya
Kumari, Alka Jha, Naresh Bakshi, Shish Pal Laler, N.P. Midha,
Balbir Singh G:.ipta, R.C. Kaushik, Shree Pal Singh, Mohit F
Chaudhary, Puja Sharma, Jyoti Mendiratta, A.V. Palli, Rekha
Palli, Anupam Raina, Aman Singh Rahi, Rajeev Kr. Singh, Rajiv
Kataria, Debjani Das P., Maninder Singh, Sermon Rawat,
Aekta Vats, Riju Raj Jamwal, Madhusmita Bora, Kiran
Bhardwaj, Shailendra Sharma, Sudhir Walia, Varsh Juneja, G
Niharika Ahluwalia, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Rekha Pandey,
Sadhana Sandhu, D.S. Mahra, Udita Singh, Ravi Prakash, LR.
Singh, Subhasis Bhowmick for the Appearing Parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H
1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Chandigarh, which is known all over the world as 'the
City Beautiful', was planned by French Architect Monsieur Le
Corbusier. The plan prepared by Le Corbusier in collaboration
8 with two other architects, namely, Maxwell Fry and Jane Drew
envisaged division of the city of Chandigarh into residential
sectors with provision for markets, educational institutions,
hospitals and other facilities.
3. After finalisation of the plan, the Government of Punjab
C acquired land of various villages for establishing Chandigarh
as the new capital of the State and also constituted various
committees including Land Scape Committee for implementing
the plan. In the meeting of the Land Scape Committee held on
3.9.1954, the Divisional Forest Officer, Rupar (now Ropar)
D suggested that the land lying along the right bank of Sukhna
Choe and the left bank of Patiala Ki Rao where plantation had
been started by the Forest Department should be declared as
reserved forest under Section 4 of the Punjab Land
Preservation Act, 1900. This was approved by the Land Scape
E Committee, and Chief Engineer, P.W.D. was asked to furnish
the details of the area. On receipt of necessary details of khasra
numbers together with the plan of the area, which included
residential and commercial plots, preliminary notification under
Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was issued by the
F State Government on 28.2.1956 and final notification under
Section 20 of that Act was issued on 3.2.1961 declaring
6724.19 acres land including about 6000 acres land which had
already been utilised for construction of the first phase of
Chandigarh, and about 280 acres land falling in the revenue
G estates of village Hallo Majra and village Dalheri Rajputan as
reserved forest. The State Government also acquired hilly area
measuring 6172.09 acres of Sukhna lake catchment during
1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64 for carrying out soil
conservation works to reduce the silt in-flow into the lake. The
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1089
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Forest Department acquired 536.64 acres of land of various A
villages along Sukhna Choe during 1963-64 to carry out soil
conservation and other improvemental works.
4. In 1966, the State of Punjab was reorganised under the
Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (for short, 'the 1966 Act') B
leading to the creation of the new State of Haryana and the
Union Territory of Chandigarh and transfer of some territories
to State of Himachal Pradesh. With this, 6706 acres land out
of 6724.19 acres land declared as reserved forest vide
notification dated 3.2.1961 was transferred to the Union c
Territory of Chandigarh and 6127.09 acres of land constituting
hilly catchment came to vest in the Central Government by virtue
of Section 48(5) of the 1966 Act.
5. With the passage of time, Chandigarh became an
important destination for education and attracted students from D
all over the country. However, the employment opportunities
available in the city did not match the educational facilities and
this resulted in exodus of talent from Chandigarh to other cities.
In the beginning of 21st Century the Chandigarh Administration
took steps to provide various incentives including allotment of E
land to the entr~preneurs desirous of setting up industries in
the field of information technology because that was expected
to generate huge employment. In the first instance, the
Administration decided that 111 acres land, which had been F
acquired between 1950 and 1977 and was lying vacant, may
be utilised for establishing a world class Information Tech·nology
Park in the name of Late Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi (for
short, 'the IT Park'). This area was designated as Phase-I of
the IT Park and the plots were allotted to the following:
G
H
m 0 CJ )>
Date of "/oage starus .....
~.No. Name of Companies Plot No. Allotment Present Status· ofbuildin2 Sil.:~ of land 0
11.06.2004, co
0
1 Infosys 1 10.11.2005 nn.-rational 100 30.21
Non-SEZ
Built to Suit Sites fin Acres) en
Date of c
$.No. Name of Comnanies Plot No. Allotment Status of Ooeration Size of land "'U
Structure completed, expected to complete by Sep' 11
:;a
1 Alchemist Ltd. 02.01.2006 70 1.3
m
F-5
s::
2
3
Amadeus
Bebo Tcchnolo2ies Ltd.
B-11
D-3
07.12.2005
27.12.2006
Structure comnleted, exnected to comolete bv Seo' 11
Eseavatioo done, ex cted to comolete hv S..n' l l
80
30
1.4 l
l.01
m
4 Compact Disc India 13 20.4 2009 Zoning titan issued, drawin.,. .. will be submitted shortly 0 0.996 (")
Damco Solutions Ltd. 13-A 16.8.2009 Zoning plan issued, drawings will be submitted shortly 0.9 0
5 0 c
:;a
6 FCS Software Solutions Ltd. 29.12.2005 GrQnnd & First Floor operational 100 1.65 -I
J-7
:;a
7 IDS Infotech Ltd. 2.l.2006 Escavation is on, expected to complete by Sep' 11 50 l.32 m
1-8 "'U
8 Karin Informatics Services Ltd. 14 01.06.2006 A lied for oartial comoletion 100 1.5 0
~
9 Microtek International Pvt. Ltd. A-12 02.01 2006 Structure comoleted, i:xoectcd to complete by Sep' 11 85 1.46
10 Netsmartz Tnfotech (1) Pvt. Ltd. 07.08.2006 Applied for partial completion 100 1.76
E-10
11 Net Solutions 05.06.2006 Structure completed, expected to complete by Sep' 11 80 1.6
15 'N
12 PCC Technology Group
C-4
'17.03 2009 Letter of Allotment yet to he issued 0 I.I
.....
0
~
13 RT Outsourcing Services Ltd.
16
12.06 2006 Building is complete & Ground Floor is operational 100 1.5
.....
N
14 Second Foundation Inc.
Virsa Systems
G-9
H-<;
15 12 2005
28 12.2005
Structure completed, expected to coffiplete bv Sen' 11
Structure completed, expected to complete by Sep' l l
95
80
1.48
1.3
en
15
(")
16 DLF Infocitv Dcvelooers Ltd. 2 23.12.2003 Already • Jnerational since Sep' 05 100 12.5 ;:o
<( u 0 w u.
...... "t:I Q)
O>
0
...... -~ .5
::::J
c: -
SEZ Phase II
::> CT 0
o- Main Camnus Site (in Acres)
u-:'"
1--,
ra "O
lh Q) S.No. Name ofComnanies
Date of
W- ra :::: Plot No. Allotment Status ofOoeration Size of land
:: .Q
">
~ :r:
30 •
"t:I ra 1 Winro Technolo11ies Ltd. 27 Resumed Resumed 0
c: ~ Camnus Sites in Acres}
w (!) ..!!! ~..Q Date of
enZ
o:: en
lh ~2 S.No. Name of Co,.,."'anies Plot No. Allotment Status of Oneration Size of land
w.
r. Cl.!
1-(!)
0
ra .Q >
r-- a.
- ·a,
!!! lh c:
Q)
I Tech Mahindra Ltd.
Built to Suit Sites
22-23 26.05.2006 11nPrational since Oct'09 100 15
(in Acres)
o~
-
CD Q) Date of
oen N .c: !!! S.No. Name of Comnanies Plot No. Allotment Status of Oneration Size of land
~ ra
z 0::: Q) "O
<(0 > c: .c:.2 I 22nd Cen..·-· Te<::hnolooies Inc. 25-C 08.05.2008 · Allotment awaited 0 0.67
0 ra .c:
...,. -"' 2 KMG Infotech Pvt. Ltd. 25-A 05.04.2009 Allotment done, vet to submit drawin11s 0 I.I
-
0::: 0
.:( z .0 ~
0 ra
:: 3 Ramtech Software Solutions 26-A 12.03.2009 Drawinl!s of nrooosed buildinP" submitted 0 0.52
0:: <( N 0 a... 4 Silicon Vallev Svstech Inc. 25-D 05.05.2008 SEZ aooroval awaited 0 0.67
al<( 5 Rolta India Ltd. 25-D Resumed 0 2.98
'
0 I-
-~
:r: 0 0
~
NonMSFZ
<!>z 0
N
Q) Camnus Site · (in Ai:resl
z- c: -
.C: Q)
Date of
-u. "O
S.No. Name ofCo-~anies
eno Q) - Q)
<Uo.c:
Pim No. Allotment Status ofOoeration Sire of land
0::: z ~.-: I Bharti Airtel Ltd. · 21 05.06.2006 ~rational s!nce Aue:'09 100 5
WO
o_ Q) Q) lh
2 e-Svs Techno!Ouies Ltd. 21 Under litiuation 0 6
zz co ~ -~
CD .c: -
0:: ::::> 0... gi
:::J ~ "O
en .!:! .5
1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A 7. The land allotted to Wipro Technologies Ltd. (30 acres),
Rolla India Ltd. (2.98 acres) and e-Sys Technologies Ltd. (6
acres) was subsequently resumed because they failed to set
up their units.
B 8. Out of the remaining land of Phase-II, 135 acres was
transferred to the Chandigarh Housing Board (for short, 'the
Board') vide order dated 15.11.2005/1.12.2005 issued by the
Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration for development
of residential and other infrastructural facilities in the IT Park.
The relevant portions of that order are extracted below:
c
"1. The Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh-, is
pleased to order to the transfer of 135 acres of land
in the Chandigarh Technology Park at Kishangarh
in favour of the Chandigarh Housing Board,
D Chandigarh, on free hold basis, for the execution
of the project of development and residential and
other infrastructural facilities in the said park. The
price of the land, details of the land use and other
terms and conditions of transfer of this land will be
E decided later on.
2. The Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh is
further pleased to designate the Chandigarh
Housing Board, Chandigarh as the Nodal Agency
for executing the aforesaid project by engaging SBI
F Caps as consultants who would help fine tune the
financial package, as also prepare the old
document.
3. Broad guidelines are spelt out hereunder:-
G
1. The whole exercise would involve a joint
venture with the private party through an
agreement, but without creating a· joint
venture company.
H II. No capital expenditure would be involved on
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1093
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
the part of the Chandigarh Administration. A
Ill. The building and sale of all property would be
left to the private party but all money will be
received in the first instant by the Chandigarh
Housing Board so that there is no under B
reporting of gross revenues.
4. The Chandigarh Housing Board will complete the
process preliminary to the inviting of bids in 12 weeks or so
and complete the work construction of the building within a
period of 18 months or so." C
9. Though, the ostensible object of transferring land to the
Board was development of residential and other infrastructural
facilities in the IT Park, the real purpose was to benefit the
private developers and this became evident from the decision D
taken in the meeting of the officers of the Chandigarh
Administration held on 30.3.2006. Paragraphs 1(a), 8 and 9
of the minutes of that meeting are reproduced below:
"1. Land Allotment.
E
(a) The entire l~nd including land under
commercial will be allotted to CHB on free
hold basis, however CHB will transfer the
land under commercial use on lease hold
basis as per the prevalent policy of F
Chandigarh Administration.
8. Modalities of disposal of service/studio
apartments and commercial property
The service/studio apartments and the commercial F
property shall be transferred to the developer on
lease hold basis. The developer would be quoting
and paying to CHB one time cost of the service I
. studio apartments and the commercial property.
30% share will not be taken of the subsequent H
1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 12 S.C.R.
A revenues from these two properties.
9. 10% Reservation for allotment to 1.• T.
professionals.
10% dwelling units may be allowed to be purchased
B by l.T. companies established in Chandigarh or its
employees. The detailed modalities will be worked
out by CHB separately."
10. In furtherance of the aforesaid decision, the Board
c invited bids for disposal of the land. M/s Parsvnath Developers
Limited, who gave the bid of Rs.821.21 crores was allotted
123. 79 acres land. However, after issuing a glamorous
advertisement with the title Parsvnath - PRIDE ASIA,
Chandigarh (An Address for Aristocratic Living) to attract
D prospective buyers of residential and commercial properties,
Mis Parsvnath Developers appears to have abandoned the
project and raised certain disputes which are pending before
the arbitrator.
11. Soon after transfer of almost half of the land acquired
E for Phase-II to a private developer, Land Acquisition Officer,
Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter described as, 'the
LAO') sent Memo No. Teh.(LA)/LA0/2005/37365 dated
15.12.2005 to the Director, Information Technology, Chandigarh
with reference to some meeting held on 9.12.2005 under the
F Chairmanship of the Finance Secretary-cum-Secretary
Information Technology, Chandigarh and asked him to provide
the drawing of 50 acres land adjoining the IT Park for facilitating
its acquisition. That memo reads under:
G "From
The Land Acquisition Officer,
UT, Chandigarh.
To
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1095
UNION OF INDIAAND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.)
The Director Information Technology, A
Chandigarh Administration,
Chandigarh.
Memo No. Teh (LA)/LA0/2005/37366
Dated, Chandigarh, the 15/12/05
B
Subject : Acquisition of land in Village Manimajra for
znd phase of 1.T. Park.
This refers to minutes of the meeting held on
09.12.2005 under the chairmanship of Sh. S.K. Sandhu, C
Finance Secretary/Secretary Information Technology,
Chandigarh Administration, wherein it was emphasized to
acquire 50 acres of land adjoining to the present l.T. Park
in Kishangarh (Manimajra) for construction of 2nd phase
of IT. Park.
D
You are, therefore, requested to provide drawing of
the land required to be acquired so that further action to
acquire the land is initiated.
Sd/-
E
Land Acquisition Officer,
UT, Chandigarh."
12. The aforesaid memo sent by the LAO was clearly
misleading because in the meeting held on 9.12.2005 no
decision was taken for the acquisition of 50 acres land F
adjoining the IT Park. This is evinced from the contents of the
minutes of the meeting held on 9.12.2005, which are
reproduced below:
"Minutes of the meeting held on 9.12.2005 under the G
Chairmanship of Sh. S.K. Sandhu, Finance Secretary/
Secretary Information Technology, Chandigarh
Administration.
A meeting was held under the Chairmanship of Sh. S.K. H
Sandhu. Finance Secretary/Secretary Information
1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
Technology to review the progress of development of the
A first & second phases of Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh
Technology Park. The following officers were present :-
1. Smt. Renu Saigal, Chief Architect
2. Sh. V.K. Bhardwaj, Chief Engineer
B
3. Sh. Wazeer Singh Goyat, Land Acquisition Officer
4. Sh. Vivek Atray, Director Information Technology
5. Sh. N.S. Brar, Assistant Estate Officer.
c
6. Dr. Sanjay Tyagi, Director STPI Mohali.
7. Sh. M.L Arora, Senior Town Planner
8. Sh. Vaibhav Mittal, Promotion & Information Officer
D
The following decisions were taken:-
1. It was decided that the infrastructure development for
the second phase consisting of 120 acres for l.T. services
and 130 acres for non IT service may be taken up by the
E Engineering Department as per the lay out plan prepared
by the Urban Planning Department.
2. It was decided to start the work of construction of the
internal road which leads to Build to Suit Sites at CTP
F Phase-1 on an urgent basis. The road next to Infosys is to
be shifted as already urgently.
3. It was decided that the Build to Suit Sites which have
already been allotted would be formally handed over to the
G
allottees and their construction may begin by next month.
4. It was also decided that the power line in the entire area
comprising CTP Phase-I and Phase-II may be shifted
underground along the roads.
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1097
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
5. Five new Build to Suit Sites have also been earmarked A
as per the plan in the CTP Phase-I. This plan was
approved.
6. Regarding land scaping it was decided that Chief
Architect UT, Chief Engineer UT and Director Information B
Technology will decide the final plan from the 3 plans
received from Chandigarh College of Architecture.
7. The Porta Structure for the Reception/Help Desk would
be set up by CE/UT immediately.
c
8. It was decided to close the access from Mansa Devi
side & from Indira Colony urgently.
9. Zoning of the Build to Suit Sites would be Finalized by
12.12.2005.
D
Meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the chair.
(S.K.Sandhu)
FS/SIT"
13. The Director, Information Technology sent DO No. 107 E
dated 12.1.2006 to the LAO and requested him to take action
as per the minutes of the meeting held on 9.12.2005. In turn,
the LAO sent DO No.1294-95 dated 16.01.2006 to the Director
and reiterated the instructions contained in memo dated
15.12.2005. After4 days, he sent letter dated 16.1.2006 to the F
Finance Secretary in the context of some meeting held on
4.1.2006 and pointed out that 280 acres land including 50 acres
land already decided to be acquired for IT Park was available
for acquisition. That letter reads as under:
G
"From
The Land Acquisition Officer,
UT, Chandigarh
To, H
1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A The Finance Secretary,
Chandigarh Administration,
Chandigarh.
Memo No. Kgo (LA)/LA0/2006/1296
Dated, Chandigarh, the 16/1/06
8
Subject: Acquisition of remaining land in Village Manimajra,
T, Chandigarh. DThis refers to the minutes of the
c eeting held on 29.12.2005 under the chairmanship
of the Finance Secretary-cum-Secretary, lnformat
on Technology, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh,
wherein it was decided to acquire 50 acres of land
adjoining to the present l.T. Park in village Kishangarh
D (Manimajra) for construction of 2nd phase of l.T. Park.
Accordingly, the Director Information Technology, UT,
Chandigarh, vide this office Memo No.37365 dated
15.12.2005 was requested to provide drawing of the land
required to be acquired so that further action is initiated,
E but no communication has been received till date.
Subsequently, in a meeting held on 04.01.2006, it was
desired to acquire the land of Village Manimajra as
maximum as can be. Accordingly, an intensive survey of
F the area has been got conducted, according to which it
has been found that 280 acres of land in Village Manimajra
is available for acquisition. It is clarified here that this 280
acres include 50 acres of land already decided to be
acquired for l.T. Park. However, there are about 275
G structures in the shape of small houses in the locality called
'Shastri Nagar', 32 Farm-houses, 2 Nurseries and 2
Poultry-farms. The proposed land to be acquired has been
shown on the map enclosed herewith.
If this land is decided to be acquired, a sum of Rs. 165
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1099
UNION OF INDIAAND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
crores (approximately) would be required on account of A
compensation for land and trees/structures. It is pertinent
to mention here that the farm-houses, in fact, are orchards
having costly fruit-bearing trees, hence compensation of
these fruit-bearing trees would be invariably very high.
8
You are, therefore, requested to convey the decision on
the aforesaid proposal.
Land Acquisition Officer
UT, Chandigarh.
Dated: 16/1/06" C
14. Since, there was some confusion about the date of the
meeting mentioned in the first line of the aforementioned letter,
Dr Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel for the Union
Territory of Chandigarh gave an assurance on 6.9.2012, i.e., D
the date on which the order was reserved, that the relevant
minutes will be handed over to the Court Master. Thereafter,
Shri S. K. Setia, Joint Secretary (Estates), Chandigarh
Administration filed affidavit dated 10.9.2012, paragraph 4
whereof reads as under:
E
"4. That in response to courts query, the deponent
respectfully submi~s as under:
There was no meeting held on 29.12.2005. This is a
typographical error in the letter dated 16.01.2006. The F
correct date of the meeting is 09.12.2005. This is self
evident from various letters on the original file which refer
to 09.12.2005 which are explained and annexed below.
There was a meeting held on 04.01.2006, which was
attended by Land Acquisition Officer; Director, IT and Jt. G
Secretary (Finance). However, no minutes were recorded
for that meeting, which is referred to in the letter dated
16.01.2006.•
15. After three months, the Finance Secretary sent memo H
1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A dated 18.4.2006 to the LAO requiring him to submit draft
notification for the acquisition of 280 acres land in two
parts. That letter reads as under:
"From
B The Finance Secretary,
Chandigarh Administration,
No. PA/LA0/1019
Dt:20.4.06
c To
The Land Acquisition Officer,
U.T. Chandigarh.
D Memo No.43/3/157-UTFl{5)-06/2123
Dated, Chandigarh the 18.4.06
Subject: - Acquisition of land measuring 280 acres in
village Kishangarh {Manimajra).
E The matter regarding acquisition of land measuring
280 acres in village Kishangarh Manimajra has been
discussed for the development of 2nd Phase of l.T. Park.
It has been decided that the said land may be acquired in
2 parts, i.e. (140 acres + 140 acres). Your are therefore
F requested to take immediate necessary action and send
draft notification U/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
immediately so that the process of acquisition is started.
Superintendent Finance-I
for Finance Secretary,
G
Chandigarh Administration."
16. In compliance of the directive given by the Finance
Secretary, the LAO sent the draft notification under Section 4(1)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 {for short, 'the Act') for the
H acquisition of 104.83 acres land. The Adviser to the
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v. 1101
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter A
described as, 'the Adviser') accorded his approval on
27.6.2006 and on the same day, the notification was sent for
publication in the official gazette and the newspapers. The
public purpose specified in the notification was "the provision
of city level infrastructure, the regulated urban development of B
the area between Chandigarh and Mani Majra and the planned
development and expansion of the Chandigarh Technology
Park". The first four paragraphs of the notification read as
under:
"CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION FINANCE
c
DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
No.43/3/229-UTF(5)-2006/ Dated: D
Whereas it appears to the Administrator, Union Territory,
Chandigarh, that the land in the locality specified below is
likely to be needed for a public purpose namely for "the
provision of city level infrastructure, the regulated urban
development of the area between Chandigarh and Mani E
Majra; the planned development and expansion of
Chandigarh Technology Park' in the village Mani Majra,
H.B.No.375, Union Territory, Chandigarh.
Now, therefore, this Notification under the provisions of F
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the
information of all concerned that it is hereby notified that
the land in the said locality is to be needed for the said
purpose.
And in exercise of the powers conferred by the aforesaid G
Section read with Government of India, Ministry of Home
Affairs, Notification Number 3612 dated 8th October, 1968,
the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, is pleased
to authorize the Officers for the time being engaged in
H
1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A undertaking this work with their servants and workmen to
enter upon and survey the land in the locality and do all
other acts required or permitted by that Section.
The person interested can file their objections under
Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within one
B
month from the publication of the Notification before the
Land Acquisition Collector, Union Territory, Chandigarh."
17. On 2.8.2006, another notification was issued for the
acquisition of 167.50 acres land for the same purpose.
c
18. Surinder Singh Brar, who is one of the appellants in
the lead case submitted representation dated 12.7.2006 to the
Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter
described as, 'the Administrator') and prayed that the land in
0 question may not be acquired because large number of trees
had been grown by the landowners and cutting of the same will
adversely impact the environment and ecology of the area. Shri
Brar emphasized that the land already acquired for IT Park was
lying unutilized and, therefore, there was no justification to
E acquire additional land. The Administrator rejected the
representation of Shri Brar vide his letter dated 31.7.2006,
which is reproduced below:
"General (Reid.) S.F. Rodrigues RAJ BHAVAN
PVSM, VSM CHANDIGARH 160019
F Governor of Punjab JULY 31, 2006
and
Administrator
Union Territory, Chandigarh
I am in receipt of your representation dated 12.7.2006
G regarding land acquisition & related issues. The issues
raised mostly pertain to changes in the existing law, for
which decisions are to be taken at different levels. The
Administration has to perform its duty within the existing
laws and therefore, there are a number of factors which
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1103
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
have to be taken into account. The Administration has A
been acquiring the land for various development projects
being implemented for the public good. You will agree that
the future of U.T., Chandigarh does not lie in agriculture.
Rather, we have to concentrate and invest in those sectors,
where the factor productivity is relatively higher, and which B
offer our youth opportunities for advancement.
Land is the primary and essential requirement for any
project and therefore the Administration has to go for its
acquisition. The rate of compensation is determined as
per the existing provisions of law and keeping in view the C
judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts.
The collector rates in Chandigarh have been revised twice,
during the last year and the compensation has recently
been paid to the tune of Rs. 40 to Rs. 45 lacs per acre.
The award is further subject to legal scrutiny by courts, as D
the land owner has the liberty to approach them. You would
appreciate that the Government is not a profit making
organization and no surpluses are being generated from
the acquisition of land. In fact, the so called surplus is the
value addition due to the change of land use, which is E
invested for the development of the U.T. It would also be
worthwhile to remind you that the Administration has to
incur huge expenditure for the creation of public utility
services and a large portion of the acquired land has to
be kept vacant, to maintain the character of the city. F
Apart from the above, Chandigarh Housing Board is
taking care of the oustees, under its scheme of 1996.
There really is no scope for any discretion in the process.
Yours sincerely, G
[General (Reid.) S.F. Rodrigues
PVSM, VSM]."
19 .. Some of the landowners including Brig. Kuldip Singh H
1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A Kehlon, who is one of the appellants in the appeal arising out
of SLP (C) Nos.13518-13521/2011 filed an application under
the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('RTI' Act) and sought
information on various issues which had direct bearing on the
acquisition of their land. Senior Town Planner-cum-Central
B Public Information Officer, Chandigarh Administration sent reply
dated 22.7.2007, the relevant portions of which are extracted
below:
"The information of the paras relating to this office is as
under:-
c
3 (vii) FAR Allowed in IT Park Area:
Built to suit site (BTS) 1.25
Campus sites 0.5
D
However, FAR can be increased to 0.75 on payment.
4(c) The Development Plan of the area being acquired: -
Planning for Ph.-1 and Ph.-11 of Rajiv Gandhi Technology
E Park has been done. However the Ill phase of Chandigarh
Technology Park is being acquired and planning for the
same will be done after the acquisition and on receipt of
survey plan from the Engineering Department. U.T ..
Chandigarh.
F
4(d) The area in question is not yet planned hence. detail
of area cannot be provided.
4(1) THE PLANNING OF Phase I & II of the Rajiv Gandhi
Technology Park has been completed. In the side area the
G
planning has been done for IT and other related services/
uses to IT Park i.e., Hotel, Grid Sub Station, Tube Wells,
Commercial Area, reserve etc.
4Q,k) II is a policy matter to be decided at higher level.
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1105
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [GS. SINGHVI, J.]
5 (a) Originally the Chandigarh was planned for five lacs A
of population. As per the 2001 census the total population
of Chandigarh is 9 lacs and it is envisaged that in the year
2021 the approximate population of Chandigarh will be 18
lacs approximately on the basis of growth rate projections.
B
(c) There is no legal master plan of the city. However, the
planning of the land available within the jurisdiction of
Chandigarh is being undertaken as per the future demands
and needs of the city."
(emphasis supplied) C
20. The appellants and other landowners filed objections
under Section 5A(1) of the Act, the salient features of which
were:
"(a) The purpose for which the land is proposed to be D
acquired is not in fact 'public-purpose'.
(b) The proposed acquisition is not in consonance with the
Environment Law and proposed development will certainly
damage the ecology of Sukhna Choe catchments area. E
(c) This acquisition is against the provisions of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980, which does not allow
deforestation leading to environmental deterioration.
(d) The Chandigarh Administration has not obtained F
permission of the Government of India for changing the
land use of the land sought to be acquired.
(e) The acquisition of land would involve chopping down
of hundreds of fruit and non-fruit bearing trees of more than G
15 years age.
(f) This area works as lungs to the residents of the City.
After acquisition of this area and construction of high
buildings, no breathing area will left for the residents of H
1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A Chandigarh.
(g) The land is being acquired for four different purposes,
but the Administration itself does not know as to how much
area would be utilized for each and individual purpose.
B (h) The Chandigarh Administration has acquired large
chunks of land over past 15 years, most of which is still
lying unutilized or encroached. He enumerated a number
of notifications issued by the Chandigarh Administration
vide which the lands have been acquired by the
c Chandigarh Administration.
(i) The land is being acquired with the intention or
profiteering.
0) The Chandigarh Administration has not been able to
D provide a proper plan for the development and utilization
of the land to be acquired.
(k) The Administration has not framed any scheme for
rehabilitation of the landowners whose land is acquired
E and they have been uprooted more than once.
(I) Only 10% of the flats would be built on 129 acres of land
given to Parsvanath Developers and the developer is likely
to accrue immense tax relief on the basis of the units being
built in the SEZ.
F
(m) Most of the land stands already acquired and reserved
for l.T Park has not so far utilized then what is the necessity
to acquire this land.
G (n) Where the acquisition of this land will uproot the farmers
from their livelihood and abode, it would immensely
damage the green cover of the city and about 50000 fully
grown trees would also be chopped down. The
Administration on one hand does not allow even a tree to
H be cut, though it is on the mettalled road in terms of Forest
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1107
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Act, then how the Administration would afford to cut the 20 A
years old fruit/non-fruit bearing trees.
(o) The acquisition of land is in violation of the Punjab New
Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952. The Periphery
Control Act was enacted to ensure the outskirts of the city B
as green belt."
21. For the sake of reference, some of the objections filed
by Shri Surinder Singh Brar and Shri Kuldip Singh Kahlon are
reproduced below:
c
Surinder Singh Brar:
"Notification not proper hence liable to be quashed:
The impugned notification is liable to be quashed as the
public purpose mentioned therein is vague as it is not D
possible for the right holders to raise objections against
the same under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 effectively. The total area under acquisition is less
than 168 acres. There are four purposes mentioned for
which the land is sought to be acquired without specifying E
as to how much land is needed for each purpose. The four
purposes mentioned are:
(i) the provision of city level infrastructure
(ii) the regulated urban development of area F
between Chandigarh and Mani Majra
(iii) the planned development
(iv) expansion of Chandigarh Technology Park.
G
The petitioner does not know as to how much area is
needed for either of these purposes, what is the meaning
of city level infrastructure and what is the difference
between regulated urban development and planned
development. In fact 100 acres of land is not big enough H
1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A an area for either of the purposes in itself. Therefore, to
enable the right holders to raise objections effectively they
must know as to how much area is required for each
purpose and how the purposes mentioned are different
from each other, particularly item numbers (i), (ii) and (iii).
8
The impugned acquisition proceedings have been
undertaken without the concurrence of the Defence
Ministry, Government of India. Chandigarh is surrounded
by strategic defence installations like the Mullapur
Garibdas Air Force Station, Head Quarters of the Western
c Command at Chandimandir, Chandigarh Air Force
Station, Kasauli Air Force Station, etc. Intact the Mullapur
Garibdas Air Force Station houses most modern missiles
and radars while Chandimandir houses a strategic
communication centre. Thus, urbanising the area in Village
D Mani Majra, District Chandigarh may lead to compromising
with the security of the nation.
Violation of the Periphery Act:
The impugned notification itself is violative of the
E
provisions of the Periphery Control Act in so far as the
permissions required under the said Act have not been
obtained by the Chandigarh Administration. The
Chandigarh Administration is a separate entity from the
authorities exercising the powers under the Periphery
F Control Act. To the knowledge of the objectors no
permission has been obtained, as of date, by the
Chandigarh Administration for the development of the
aforementioned land from the authority under the Periphery
Control Act and consequently the entire acquisition
G proceedings are illegal, null and void.
Over the past 15 years the Chandigarh Administration has
compulsorily acquired huge chunks of land in Village
Manimajra, District Chandigarh purportedly for various
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v. 1109
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
public purposes. However, in most cases the areas A
acquired have not been fully utilized and are either lying
vacant or have been encroached upon. In this scenario the
action of the Chandigarh Administration to acquire another
huge chunk of land in Village Manimajra under the
impugned notification is incomprehensible and cannot be B '
justified. The details of the notifications issued under
Sections 4 arid 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
whereunder land has earlier been acquired by Chandigarh
Administration in Village Manimajra, District Chandigarh
but large chunks whereof are still lying unutilized or under c
encroachment are as under:
• Notification No.3/117-UTFl{4)-89/12204 dated
11.9.1989 issued under Section 6 of the LA Act
covering 29.07 acres of land in Village Manimajra,
District Chandigarh for the public purpose of D
"resident-cum-commercial complex scheme no.2";
• Notification No.3/117-UTFl(4)-89/12209 dated
11.9.1989 issued under Section 6 of the LA Act
covering 39.27 acres of land in Village Manimajra,
E
District Chandigarh for the public purpose of
"residential-cum-commercial complex scheme no.2
and construction of multi-specialty hospital";
• Notification No.3/117-UTF1(4)-89/12539 dated
18.10.1989 issued under Section 6 of the LA Act F
covering 29.75 acres of land in Village Manimajra,
District Chandigarh for the public purpose of
"residential-cum-commercial complex scheme
no.2"
• Notification No.3/117-UTF1{4)-89/12544 dated G
18.10.1989 issued under Section 6 of the LA Act
covering 37.55 acres of land in Village Manimajra,
District Chandigarh for the public purpose of
"residential-cum-commercial complex scheme
no.2"; H
1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A • Notification No.3/117-UTFl(4) 1361 dated 13/
14.2.1990 issued under Section 6 of the LA Act
covering 36.37 acres of land in Village Manimajra,
District Chandigarh for the public purpose of
"residential-cum-commercial complex scheme
B no.2";
• Notification No.3/117-UTFl(4)-90/1366 dated 13/
14.2.1990 issued under Section 6 of the LA Act
covering 21.51 acres of land in Village Manimajra,
c District Chandigarh for the public purpose of
"residential-cum-commercial complex scheme
no.2";
• Notification No.3/117-UTFl(4)-91/7628 dated
8.8.1991 issued under Section 6 of the LA Act
D
covering 40.84 acres of land in Village Manimajra,
District Chandigarh for the public purpose of
"residential-cum-commercial; complex scheme
no.3";
E • Notification No. UTFl(4)-93/903 dated 29.1.1993
issued under Section 6 of the LA Act covering
54.37 acres of land in Village Manimajra, District
Chandigarh for the public purpose of "residential-
cum-commercial complex and for the construction
F of a college building and sports stadium etc.
scheme no.3";
• Notification No.UTFl(4)-93/906 dated 29.1.1993
issued under Section 6 of the LA Act covering
G 39.96 acres of land in Village Manimajra, District
Chandigarh for the public purpose of "residential-
cum-commercial complex and for the constructioo
of municipal park and public utility building scheme
no.3";
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1111
UNION OF INDIAAND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
• Notification no.A-32017/15/Pl/91/28 dated A
27.11.1991 issued under Section 4 of the LA Act
covering 56.14 acres of land in Village Manimajra,
District Chandigarh for the public purpose of
"setting up nurseries".
B
Public purpose not defined:
In the impugned notification the Chandigarh Administration
has proposed to acquire the land for the alleged public
purpose of:
c
"....the provision of city level infrastructure, the
regulated urban development of the area between
Chandigarh and Mani Majra, the planned
development and expansion of Chandigarh
Technology Park" in village Manimajra. D
The setting-up or expansion of a technology park, for which
the land in dispute is also sought to be acquired, is not a
public purpose. In fact, the Chandigarh Administration itself
has neither developed nor is it running the technology park
but has allotted the land to DLF Ltd., a private entrepreneur E
for this purpose. DLF Ltd. has profiteered by selling the
area further to other private companies. Thus the whole
idea behind the impugned acquisition proceedings is to
assist a private entrepreneur to profiteer. No person from
the ordinary public will be benefited in any way. In today's F
age and economy a private entrepreneur can very well
purchase land by private negotiations instead of the State
assisting him.
If the Chandigarh Administration is bent upon urbanising G
the green belt against all respect for the ecology and
environment, then why are the landowners themselves not
allowed to develop their land 'within the set development
plan as opposed to taking the land away from the small
agriculturists and selling it further to private developers at H
1112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A a huge profit, thus playing the role of land brokers.
As no real public purpose has clearly been defined by the
Chandigarh Administration in the impugned notification i.e
building roads for common use etc. it is clear that it is for
the purpose of a particular industry only. The Chandigarh
B
Administration ought to define in clear terms as to what it
means by public purpose. How does a particular private
industry become a "public purpose".
The purported purposes for which the land in dispute is
c sought to be acquired under the impugned notification are
the provision of city level infrastructure, the regulated
development of the area between Chandigarh and
Manimajra, the planned development and expansion of
Chandigarh Technology Park. The said alleged public
D purposes mentioned in the impugned notification are
extremely vague and non-specific leaving one completely
in the dark as to what actually the Chandigarh
Administration intends to do with the acquired land. No
particular residential or commercial scheme-has been
E drawn up by the Chandigarh Administration for acquiring
the land in dispute. The acquisition of valuable land under
the impugned notification thus amounts to a colourable
exercise of power by the Chandigarh Administration.
Under the impugned notification the purported public
F purpose for which the land in dispute is being acquired is
stated to be planned and regular development as well as
provision of city level infrastructure. It is not understandable
as to how the same land can be developed to provide city
level infrastructure which necessarily means urbanization.
G The concern for the ecology and environment is completely
necessary. Rather the acquisition under the impugned
notification would lead to complete destruction of the land
sought to be acquired under the impugned notification.
H The public purpose must not only be specified in the
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v. 1113
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition A
Act, 1894 but in order to enable an objector to effectively
object under Section 5-A the details of the public purpose,
alongwith the details of the scheme, the plans etc. must
be available in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector
for perusal of the objector. In the present case as no such B
plan/scheme is available in the office of the Land
Acquisition Collector or any other office, it is apparent that
the alleged public purpose is merely an attempt by the
Chandigarh Administration to acquire the land with the sole
object of using it at a later date for whatsoever purpose c
that may be required.
No public purpose has been spelt out nor any public
purpose has been established for the proposed
acquisition. In any case the proposed construction of the
IT Park is not a conducive measure because of the fact D
that it is closer to the defence area adjoining
Chandimandir and can interfere in the communication
system and sensitive defence installations. The public
purpose mentioned is vague and as such it is not possible
for the right holders to raise objections against the same, E
under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
effectively.
Violation of Environmental and Forest Laws:
The land in dispute is very close to the Sukhna Lake and F
adjacent to the Sukhna Choe and the area declared as a
reserved forest. If the land in dispute and its surrounding
areas are allowed to be urbanised it will result in the
degradation of the habitat and disturb the thousands of G
migratory birds which come every year to the Sukhna
Lake. It may be mentioned here that the Sukhna Lake is
a wetland declared by the Central Government and is a
protected area and is known as the Sukhna Wildlife
Sanctuary. If high rise buildings are allowed to be
constructed on the land being acquired under the impugned H
1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A notification it will affect the migratory route of the thousands
of birds which make their nests in the Sukhna Lake area
after migrating from as far as Siberia in Russia. Permitting
urbanisation next to the Sukhna Lake and next to the
surrounding reserve forest will be a death knell for the
B precious wildlife and fauna existing there. Though trees
may be able to survive the onslaught of urbanisation, wild
animals and birds certainly will not be able to do so and
they would have to move to safer habitats away from
human habitation.
c It would also be pertinent to mention here that the land
sought to be acquired is forest land as also agricultural
land. The proposed acquisition will result in the extinction,
uprooting & leveling of these trees which are in the prime
of life. The proposed acquisition is violative of the climate
D and environmental laws.
The acquisition of the land in dispute would involve
chopping down of fruit bearing trees and non fruit bearing
trees. Under the provisions of the Forest Act no tree in
E Chandigarh can be cut without permission of the Central
Government. In case the Central Government decides not
to grant the permission to the Chandigarh Administration
to chop down trees standing on the land in dispute, the
entire acquisition proceedings would end up in a nullity with
F wastage of huge sums of money and man-hours.
The land sought to be acquired under the impugned
notification is basically agricultural land on which, apart
from crops, there are hundreds of fruit bearing trees and
non-fruit bearing trees standing. This green area acts as
G a barrier between the urbanized areas in Chandigarh and
Panchkula in Haryana. This green and forested area also
helps in stopping soil erosion into the Sukhna Choe. The
removal of this green and forested area would result in soil
erosion which is like to cause flash floods in the rainy
H season thus putting in danger the city of Chandigarh itself.
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1115
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
As such the dangers to the ecology and subsequently to A .
the city itself can well be imagined if the acquisition under
the impugned notification is allowed to stand. The havoc
caused along the banks of the choe and in the village of
Kishangarh in particular during the recent rainy season is
not something to be taken lightly. With the urbanization and B
choking of Sukhna Choe/Lake catchment area
Chandigarh itself will be liable to immense danger of
.floods which can be life threatening to its citizen as we
have seen in the recent past. The Chandigarh
Administration needs to define its role viz a viz the citizen,c
is it here to protect us or to endanger our lives. Chandigarh
needs to be protected and that is what the Chandigarh
Administration should be doing.
That in any case, no resolution for change has been
passed for conversion of the proposed land from the D
zoning area which is forest land area/green belt prior to
the date of the publication of the notice. Thus the
notification is vitiated on this ground alone.
The proposed acquisition will also disturb the ecological E
plants and flora and fauna of the area because the
proposed acquisition will also disturb the dense forest area
having more than 50,000 grown trees which are more than
30 years old. Forests and orchards are the lungs of a cify
and have a very important environmental function to F
perform. Such lands cannot be acquired under the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The Chandigarh Administration has not carried out an
Environmental Impact Assessment study which is
extremely necessary before an exercise of this magnitude G
is carried out. Further more it needs to be pointed out that
if the recent happenings in the country are any indication,
it is essential to carry out a geological study of the area
and conduct surveys before deciding to demolish the green
belt around Chandigarh which the Chandigarh H
1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 12 S.C.R.
A Administration has not done. Every place cannot be
suitable for the multi-storied monsters of steel and concrete
that are bound to come up on the land once acquired.
Nature is beautiful but it does demand obedience to its
ordinances. When violated the earth erupts and we have
B earthquakes. Man cannot continue to 'pick nature's pocket'.
He must discipline himself.
No Planning/Scheme exists and Discrimination:
The impugned notification is illegal and void in as much
C as no plans are available in the office of the Land
Acquisition Collector with respect to the alleged city level
infrastructure to be set up. There is no plan available for
the protection of the ecology and environment and for
setting up/expansion of the Chandigarh Technology Park.
D
The petitioner reserve their rights to file such objections
as and when these plans are made available.
On enquiry, the petitioner was informed that no the plans
for the Chandigarh Technology Park and the scheme for
E protection of ecology and environment of Sukhna Choe
Watershed was available in the office of the Land
Acquisition Collector. A representative of the petitioner
was informed by the office of the Chief Architect that none
of the above particulars/scheme/site plans were available
F with them as none have been framed/drawn up by the
Chandigarh Administration nor is relevant urban planning
data available. It is thus apparent that in the absence of
any detail plans and data with respect to the avowed public
purpose, the alleged public purpose is a mere sham and,
G therefore, violates the rights of the petitioner to effectively
object to the proposed acquisition in terms of Section 5-
A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Consequently the
entire proceedings are illegal, null and void.
The Chandigarh Administration has not even designated
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1117
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
a planning agency that could have shown how the area A
under acquisition is to be developed and utilized. The
Chandigarh Administration has not been able to produce
a proper plan for the development of the so-called
Technology Park. No consideration seems to have been
taken of the following points: B
(a) geographical features that is physiography, climate,
water, soils and other physical resources;
(b) means of communication and accessibility;
c
(c) distribution of the present and future population;
(d) industrial location and growth trends;
(e) economic base and commercial activities;
D
(f) preservation of historical and cultural heritage;
(g) urban expansion and periphery management;
(h) ecological and environmental balance;
E
(i) balanced regional development of the City
Beautiful;
Q) dispersal of economic activities to alleviate
pressure on the city.
F
It is clear that no such plan existed at the time issuance of
the impugned notification and therefore the petitioner have
been denied a basic right of examining the plans and other
documents asked for."
G
Kuldip Singh Kahlon:
"VIOLATION OF PERIPHERY CONTROL ACT:
The land in question falls within the periphery of
Chandigarh and the Periphery Control Act, 1951 regulates H
1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A its use. The purpose of this legislation is to prohibit any
activity that is non-agricultural and to that extent even
prohibits the landowners from constructing houses for their
own living. The UT Administration, has been forcefully
implementing this Act and penalizing those who violate any
B of its provisions.
The provisions of the Periphery Control Act cannot apply
differently for the public and differently the Administration.
This would be arbitrary and discriminatory and be violative
of all settled principles and tenets of law. The public
c purpose for which the land is being acquired is not
covered or permitted by the periphery control act, and
therefore, the notification is void ab initio. The State cannot
be the violator of its own laws to the detriment of the public.
The notification deserves to be withdrawn on this account
D alone.
MARKET VALUE, MAKING UNDUE AND ILLEGAL
PROFIT BY THE UT ADMINISTRTION/ITS AGENCIES:
The sole purpose of the Administration appears to be is
E
to use public funds to acquire land and sell it at high profits.
The market value of land is artificially suppressed by
disallowing any activity, other than agriculture, by the UT
Administration. The market forces are not allowed to
operate so long as land is in the hands of the landowners.
F
The Collector Tate therefore cannot and does not reflect
the market value of the land. This situation changes when
the land is in the hands of the UT Administration or its
Agencies, This is proved from the fact that 129 acres of
G land in village Manimajra was acquired in the year 2002
and compensation between Rs. 9-12 lacs per acre was
paid by the UT Administration. The same was transferred
to Chandigarh Housing Board at no cost, which further sold
at profit to developers namely: Parsvanath Developer
H Private Limited for a sum of Rs. 821.21 crores or approx.
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1119
UNION OF INDIAAND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
630 lacs per acre. This is approximately 70 times the A
collector's rate.
It is important to note that undeveloped land was sold to
this company, which means that the UT Administration
acquired land at low price and without making any
8
investment on it sold it at a higher profit. This is extremely
unfair to the farmers who have struggled rate does not
reflect a realistic/actual value of the land, in this area. Going
by the sale mentioned above, the market value of the land
in village Manimajra is not less than Rs.630 lacs per acre. C
VIOLATION OF MASTER PLAN:
The development of Chandigarh is regulated by its Master
plan. The land proposed to be acquired falls in the
ecologically fragile green belt along the lake and Sukhna 0
choe. Any land use change will not only threaten the
environment of the city but will also disturb the habitat of a
large species of flora arid fauna. It is public knowledge that
no lay out plan for this area has been neither prepared nor
other formalities completed as mandated by the land E
acquisition Act and the FCs Standing Order 28.
Acquisition of land without first amending the master Plan
by following due procedure prescribed by law and without
clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests will
be bad in law."
F
22. The LAO heard the objectors, briefly noticed the
substance of their objections but did not deal with any one of
them and submitted separate reports in relation to the two
notifications with identical observations, which are extracted
below: G
"OBSERVATIONS:
After seeing the revenue record and spot inspection, I find
no merits in the objections raised by the Objectors.
H
1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A Because, for the future extension of the Capital and to
ensure healthy & planned development, and further, to
prevent growth of slums and ramshackle construction on
the land lying on the periphery of the 'new city', area of 10
miles on all sides from the outer boundary of the land was
B declared as 'controlled area'. In order to have legal authority
to control and regulate the use of the land, the Punjab New
Capital (Periphery) Control Act was enacted in 1952. The
structures as existed on the site called Shastri Nagar have
been raised in violation of the Punjab New Capital
c (Periphery) Control Act, 1952. The Capital of Punjab
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and the Punjab
New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 (two Acts
governing the planning and development of UT,
Chandigarh) envisaged Chandigarh as urbanized town or
capital city in which ramshackle construction is antithetical
D
to the very concept and planning of Chandigarh. This is
clear from the Statement of Objects and Reasons and
Section 1(2) of the latter act which are reproduced
hereunder for ready reference that whole of the area of UT
was part of 'Capital Project' and was kept reserved for
E future expansion to be required and acquired:-
"Statement of Objects and Reasons.- The Punjab
Government are constructing a New Capital named
"Chandigarh''. The master plan providing for the
F future extension of the Capital will extend over a
much greater area than the area acquired so far
the construction of the first phase of the Capital. To
ensure healthy and planned development of the new
city it is necessary to prevent growth of slums and
G ramshackle construction on the land lying on the
periphery of the new city. To achieve this object it
is necessary to have legal authority to regulate the
use of the said land for purposes other than the
purposes for which it is used at present."
H 1(2) It extends to that area of the State of Punjab
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1121
UNION OF INDIAAND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
which is adjacent to and is within a distance of ten A
miles on all sides from the outer boundary of the
land acquired for the Capital of the State at
Chandigarh as that Capital and State existed
immediately before the 1st November, 1966."
B
"5. Restrictions in a controlled area. - Except as
provided hereinafter, no person shall erect any
building or make or extend any excavation, or lay
out any means of access to a road, in the controlled
area save in accordance with the plans and C
restrictions and with the previous permission of the
Deputy Commissioner in writing."
His Excellency the Governor of Punjab and Administrator,
UT, Chandigarh has already conveyed his version, vide
letter dated 31.07.2006 to one of the Objector - Sh. S.S. D
Brar, IPS (Retd.) that the Administration has been
acquiring the land for various development projects being
implemented for the public good. He further emphasized
that the future of Union Territory, Chandigarh does not lie
in agriculture, but we have to concentrate and invest in E
those sectors, where the factor productivity is relatively
higher, and, which offer our youth opportunities for
advancement. For that matter, the land is primary and
essential requirement for any project, and therefore, the
Administration has to go for its acquisition. F
The objection that the Administration has made huge
profits out of land acquisition is baseless. The rate of
compensation is determined as per the existing provisions
of law, The determination of compensation of land is
based on a very sound principle of average as enunciated G
and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various
judgements as a sound basis for calculating market value.
The Collector rates for agricultural land have been revised
twice in the last year. While acquiring the land, the land
H
1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A owners are not only paid the award calculated on the basis .
of Collector's rate, but solatium @ 30% on the value
assessed on the basis of Collector's rate and additional
market-value @ 12% per annum on the value assessed
on the basis of Collector's rates is also paid through the
B award. It is worth mentioning that the same parameters are
being followed while making the assessment of
compensation in the other states also in the country. The
award is further subject to legal scrutiny by courts, as the
land owner has the liberty to approach them.
c The Administration is not a profit-making organization and
no surpluses are being generated from acquisition or from
further allotment of land. In fact, lot of funds are spent on
public utility services like water-supply, sewerage,
electricity-supply, laying of roads, power-plants, welfare-
D activities, public amenities, public-toilets, dumping-
grounds, sewerage-treatment plants, Educational
Institutions, Hospitals, Electricity Grid Station,. Tubewell and
Community Centres, etc. Some land is allotted at
subsidized rates also in public interest for religious,
E charitable, communitylinstitutional purposes and for
rehabilitation of slum-dwellers."
23. Thereafter, the office of the Finance Secretary
prepared a note incorporating therein the observations of the
F LAO. The Finance Secretary recorded his comments and the
Adviser appended his signature signifying his approval to the
recommendations of the LAO. For the sake of reference, the
office note and the comments of the Finance Secretary are
reproduced below:
G "Subject: Report u/s 5-A for acquisition of land
measuring 104.83 acre~ in Manimajra -
Notification u/s 6.
The Land Acquisition Officer has requested to
H accord Administrative approval for the issuance of
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1123
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
notification Under Section of the Land Acquisition Act and A
also for the acceptance of recommendations after
receiving objections Under Section 5 A from the Land
Owner with regard to acquisition land measuring 104.83
acres acquisition of land for the purpose namely "the
provision of city level infrastructure, the regulated urban B·
development of the area between Chandigarh and
Manimajra: the planned development and expansion to
Chandigarh Technology Park in Village Manimajra, U.T.
Chandigarh.
The AdministratioA had issued notification Under C
Section 4 of the Act for the acquisition of said land. The
Land Acquisition Officer has invited objections and sixteen
land owners have filled their objections.
Sh. P.C. Dhiman appeared on behalf of some land D
owners objected to the acquisition of land on the ground
that there are large number of fruit bearing trees on the
agriculture land. The illiterate land owners have only the
sole mode for their livelihood. Most of the land acquired
by the administration earlier has not been utilized. It has E
further been objected that emaciate compensation is
being given to the land owners whereas the slum dwellers
occupying government land are being rehabilitated and the
land owners are being made ·home less. The
Admin,istration is acquiring land for the public purpose for F
pocketing hefty profits by giving the land to private
developers. No rehabilitation scheme for the land owners
have been framed.
Some other land owners have also raised the similar
objections. Mrs. Ritu Joshi objected that the land is being G
acquired is being given for the· commercial activities
whereas, she has not permitted the land for the hotel
project when she applied once.
The Land Acquisition Officer after examining H·
1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A objections has found no merits, because for future
extension of capital and to ensure healthy and planned
development and further to prevent growth of slums, this
was required to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer
has further stated that the structure existing on the site
B called Shastri Nagar has been raised in violation of the
periphery control act. The objection that the Administration
is paying meager compensation is baseless as reported
by the Land Acquisition Officer. The compensation is
determined as per the existing provision of the law. The
c landowners are not only paid to award calculated on the
basis of the collector rate but also solatium @ of 30% and
additional market value@ rate of 12 % per annum. The
award has further subject to the legal scrutiny by courts,
as the land owners has the liberty to approach them.
D The Administration is not a profit-making
organization and no surpluses are being generated from
acquisition or from further allotment of land. In fact, lot of
funds are spent on public utility services like water-supply,
sewerage, electricity-supply, laying of roads, power-plants,
E welfare-activities, public amenities, public-toilets, dumping-
grounds, sewerage-treatment plants, Education Institutions,
Hospitals, Electricity Grid Station, Tube well and
Community Centers etc. some land is allotted at
subsidized rates also in public interest for religious,
F charitable, community/institutional purposes and for
rehabilitation of slum-dwellers. As regards rehabilitation of
landowners is concerned, though, there is no provision in
the land Acquisition Act to provide houses to the villagers
whose land has been acquired, but the Chandigarh
G Housing Board is taking care of such Oustees under the
Chandigarh Allotment of Dwelling Units to the Oustees of
Chandigarh Scheme, 1996.
Keeping in view the recommendations made by the
Land Acquisition Officer after receiving objections Under
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1125
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Section 5- A for the acquiring land measuring 104.83 A
acres in village Manimajra may be accepted and the case
may kindly be sent the AA for according approval and
issuance of notification under Section 6 is added below
at flag 'Y'.
B
Submitted for order please."
"Subject: Land Acquisition Case: Village
Manimajra, Hadbast No.375, Union Territory,
Chandigarh.
c
Reference PUC, the Land Acquisition Officer has
sent a report under section 5-A for acquiring land in the
revenue estate of Village Manimajra for public purposes
namely "the provision of city level infrastructure, the
regulated urban development of the area between D
Chandigarh and Manimajra, the planned development and
expansion of Chandigarh Technology Park". This
acquisition is for the Phase Ill of the Rajiv Gandhi
Technology Park.
In this case,· the notification for acquiring land E
measuring 104.83 acres under section 4 was issued on
27.6.2006. The Land Acquisition Officer invited objections
from land owners. 16 persons filed their objections in' all.
The Land Acquisition Officer heard the pleadings of F
the objectors/their counsels. The gist of their pleadings
have been cited by the LAO from pages 412-415 of his
report (PUC).
The findings of the LAO in respect of each set of
objections can be read at pages 416-418 of his report. G
The LAO has found no merits in the objections of the land-
owners (objectors). The LAO has filed the objections as
being devoid of merit and has finally recommended that
the land notified under section 4 be acquired.
H
1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A On examination of these reports, ii is found that the
LAO's findings are in order. Therefore, approval may be
granted to the proposal to issue a notification under
section 6 (placed at flag 'Y') in respect of land measuring
104.83 acres in Village Manimajra, Hadbast No.375, U.T.,
B Chandigarh.
A.A's approval would be required in this case.
SSF
28.2.2007
c AA
Sd
28.2.2007"
24. On the same day, the declarations issued under
Section 6(1) were published in official gazette dated
D 28.2.2007, the relevant portions of which are extracted below:
"Whereas it appears to the Administrator, Union Territory,
Chandigarh that the land in the locality specified below is
likely to be needed for a public purpose & namely "the
E provision of city level infrastructure, the regulated urban
development of the area between Chandigarh and
Manimajra the planned development and expansion of
Chandigarh Technology Park in Village Manimajra, H. B.
No. 375, Union Territory, Chandigarh. Now, therefore, this
F declaration is made under the provision of Section 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and with Govt. of India,
Ministry of Home affairs. Notification No. SO 3612 dated .
8th October, 1968 informing all to whom it may concern
that the land mentioned in the specifications noted below
is needed for the above mentioned public purpose. The
G
Land Acquisition Collector Chandigarh is hereby directed
to take further action for the acquisition of the said land
under Section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The plans of the land may be inspected in the office of
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1127
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Land Acquisition Collector, UT, Chandigarh." A
{emphasis supplied)
25. The appellants challenged the acquisition proceedings
in Writ Petition No.5065/2007 and batch and prayed that
Notifications dated 26.6.2006, 2.8.2006 and 28.2.2007 be B
quashed. They pleaded that the acquisition of their land was
vitiated due to violation of the mandate of Sections 4, 5A and
6 of the Act inasmuch as in the garb of acquiring land for a
public purpose, the Chandigarh Administration wanted to favour
private developers; that the purpose specified in the C
·notifications issued under Section 4(1) was vague and on that
account they could not effectively avail the opportunity of filing
objections under Section 5A(1 ); that the objections filed by them
were not considered by the LAO and the competent authority
and the declarations under Section 6(1) were issued without D
application of mind; that the acquisition was vitiated because
the matter was not considered by the committee constituted
under the notification issued by the Government of India under
Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for
short, 'the 1986 Act') and Rule 5(3) of the Environment E
(Protection) Rules, 1986 (for short, 'the 1986 Rules').
26. The Division Bench of the High Court relied upon the
judgments of this Court in Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi
(1975) 4 SCC 285, Gandhi Grah Nirrnan Sahkari Samiti Ltd.
v. State of Rajasthan (1993) 2 SCC 662, State of T.N. v. L F
Krishnan (1996) 1 SCC 250, Ajay Krishan Shingha/ v. Union
oflndia (1996) 10 SCC 721 and Sooraram Pratap Reddy v.
District Collector, Ranga Reddy District (2008) 9 SCC 552
and held that the public purpose specified in Notifications dated
26.6.2006 and 2.8.2006 was not vague; that the Chandigarh G
Administration had complied with the provisions of Sections 4,
5A and 6(1) of the Act; that the existence of a definite plan was
not a condition precedent for the acquisition of land; that the
landowners had been given opportunity to file objections and
H
1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A that the declaration was is.sued after considering the same. The
High Court also referred to the judgments of this Court in
Somawanti v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 151 and Ganga
Bishnu Swaika v. Calcutta Pinjrapole Society AIR 1968 SC
615 and held that the declaration issued under Section 6(1)
8 was conclusive and was not open to judicial review. The High
Court further held that the special audit got conducted by the
Government of India in the context of the acquisition of land for
Phases I and II of the IT Park did not have any bearing on the
acquisition of land for Phase Ill; that the decision taken by the
C Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to put the
acquisition proceedings on hold did not adversely affect the
declaration issued under Section 6(1) because final decision
in the matter was required to be taken by the Chandigarh
Administration and further that non-compliance of the National
Rehabilitation Policy was inconsequential.
D
27. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants Surinder Singh Brar and others,
relied upon Notification dated 14.8.1989 issued under Article
239(1) of the Constitution to show that the power vested in the
E appropriate Government under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the
Act, which is exercisable by the President in relation to the
Union Territories was delegated to the Administrator and
argued that in the absence of delegation of power to the
Adviser by the President, the latter could not have sanctioned
F the impugned acquisition by approving the recommendations
of the LAO. Learned senior counsel emphasized that in view
of Notification dated 14.8.1989, only the Administrator could
exercise powers under the Act and that too subject to the control
of the President and no other authority could have exercised
G that power. Shri Dwivedi further argued that the declaration
issued under Section 6(1), is not in consonance with the plain
language of the section because even the Adviser did not
consider the reports submitted by the LAO under Section 5A(2)
along with the record of proceedings and did not record his
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1129
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
satisfaction that the land was needed for a public purpose. A
Learned senior counsel submitted that use of the expressions
'it appears' and 'likely to be needed' in the notifications issued
on 20.8.2007 show that the Adviser, whose approval preceded
the issuance of declaration under Section 6(1 ), had not applied
mind to the reports of the LAO. Shri Dwivedi then argued that B
the reports prepared by the LAO are vitiated due to non-
application of mind because he did not objectively consider the
objections filed under Section 5A(1) and mechanically made
recommendations for the acquisition of land for Phase Ill
ignoring that about half of the land acquired for Phase II had c
been alienated to the private developers, namely, Parsvnath
Developer and Kujjal Builders to enable them to construct
residential complex and hotel respectively which had nothing
to do with the public purpose specified in the notifications
issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1). Learned senior counsel D
further argued that the existence of a plan is sine qua non for
the acquisition of land for planned development of the area
between Chandigarh and Mani Majra and expansion of IT Park
and, in the absence of a definite plan, there was no justification
to acquire the land in question. He sought support for this E
argument from the reply given by the Central Public Information.
Officer to Brig Kuldip Singh Kehlon and pointed out that the
Chandigarh Administration was not following the "Chandigarh
Inter-State Capital Regional Plan, 2001" approved by the
Coordination Committee set up by the Ministry of Urban
Development in 1984. Learned senior counsel also referred to F
the findings recorded in the Special Audit Report and the One-
Man Committee headed by Shri Arun Ramanathan, which was
appointed by the Government of India, to show that the land
acquired for Phases I and II of IT Park had not been utilized
and submitted that there is no justification whatsoever for the G
acquisition of additional land.
28. Shri Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing
for some other appellants, pointed out that general delegation
H
1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A of power by the President to the Administrator vide Notification
dated 1.11.1966 issued under Article 239(1) of the Constitution
stood superseded by Notifications dated 8.10.1968, 1.1.1970
and 14.8.1989 insofar as the exercise of power under the Act
is concerned and the Adviser, to whom the powers were
B delegated by the Administrator under Section 3 of the
Chandigarh (Delegation of Powers) Act, 1987 (for short, 'the
1987 Act'), was not entitled to exercise the power vested in the
appropriate Government under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the
Act.
c 29. Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel who
appeared for the appellants in the appeals arising out of
SLP(C)Nos.13518-13521/2011 referred to the objections filed
by his clients under Section 5A(1) of the Act and argued that
the High Court committed serious error by refusing to quash
D the acquisition proceedings ignoring that the Chandigarh
Administration had not sought clearance from the designated
committee constituted under Notifications dated 27.1.1994 and
14.9.2006 issued under Section 3(3) of the 1986 Act read with
Rule 5(3) of the 1986 Rules. Shri Naphade relied upon the
E judgment of this Court in Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board v. C. Kenchappa, (2006) 6 SCC 371 and
argued that non-consideration of the appellants' plea that the
acquisition would adversely impact the environment and
ecology of the area is sufficient for quashing the notifications
F impugned in the writ petitions. Learned senior counsel
submitted that the satisfaction envisaged in Section 6( 1) of the
Act pre-supposes that 'the appropriate Government' has taken
an informed decision after due application of mind to the record
and was satisfied about the need of the land for a public
G purpose and in these cases, the competent authority had not
al all applied mind to the recommendations made by the LAO
and the objections filed by the landowners.
30. Shri Neeraj Jain, learned senior counsel argued that
H the High Court committed serious error by negating the
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1131
UNION OF INDIA AND.ORS. [GS. SINGHVI, J.]
appellants' challenge to the acquisition of their land ignoring its A
impact on the environment and the fact that the declaration
under Section 6 could not have been issued without objectively
considering this important aspect. Learned senior counsel also
highlighted that a major chunk of the land acquired for Phase II
had been transferred to the developers for residential and B
commercial purposes and argued that there was no justification
for the acquisition of additional land in the name of expanding
the IT Park.
31. Learned counsel appearing for the other appellants
largely adopted the arguments of Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, Shri C
Dinesh Dwivedi and Shri Shekhar Naphade and submitted that
the entire acquisition should be quashed because the
functionaries of the Chandigarh Administration did not apply
mind to the relevant issues including adverse impact of the
acquisition on the environment and ecology of the area. D
32. Shri Rakesh Khanna, learned Additional Solicitor
General, produced copy of Notification dated 8.10.1968 issued
under Article 239(1) of the Constitution and xerox copies of the
notings recorded by the officers of the Ministry of Home Affairs E
on the report prepared by the Inquiry Officer in the light of the
Special Audit Report. He also produced the decision taken by
the Home Minister on 23.9.2010, which reads as under:
"I have seen the notes as well as the final
recommendations of AS(CS) on pages 31 and 32fn. I am F
in broad agreement with the recommendations on pages
31 and 32/n subject to the following:
(i) If any Advisory is required to be issued to the UT
Administration, a draft of the Advisory may be put up to G
me first through HS.
(ii) Where the Inquiry Officer has agreed with the audit
findings, they may be reduced to the form of a preliminary
show cause notice and the preliminary show cause notice H
1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A may be issued to those who have been found, prima facie,
responsible and the comments obtained on why
disciplinary proceedings and such other action as
permissible under law should not be taken against them.
The show cause notice may be drawn up and issued by
B 30.9.2010 and they may be given time until 15.10.2010 to
reply to the preliminary show cause notices.
(iii) Where the 10 has not agreed with the findings of the
audit, they may be referred to the CCA(H) for his
comments. This may be done by 30.9.2010 and the
c CCA(H) may be requested to offer his comments by
15.10.2010.
(iv) Any review of the powers delegated to the
Administrator of Chandigarh may be done only in
D consultation with the Administrator. The proposals may be
put up to me first through HS and then I shall give directions
on how the Administrator should be consulted.
(v) The Inquiry Report may also be forwarded to the CVC
for such action as eve may deem fit."
E
33. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing
for the Union Territory of Chandigarh relied upon Notification
dated 1.11.1966 by which the President conferred the powers
and functions of the State Government upon the Administrator
F and Notification dated 25.2.1988 issued under Section 3(1) of
the 1987 Act vide which the Administrator delegated the
powers vested in him under various State laws to the Adviser
and argued that the impugned acquisition cannot be nullified
on the ground that the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1)
G were issued without the approval of the Administrator. Dr.
Dhawan submitted that the notifications challenged before the
High Court cannot be declared illegal on the ground that the
Administrator had not accorded sanction to the acquisition of
land for Phase Ill of IT Park because no such point was argued
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1133
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
on behalf of the appellants. He then submitted that the Advisor A
to the Administrator is equivalent to the Chief Commissioner
and the Chief Commissioner and the Administrator of a Union
Territory are of coordinate rank. Learned senior counsel then
argued that the acquisition of the appellants' land cannot be
quashed on the ground that the purpose specified in B
Notifications dated 26.6.2006 and 2.8.2006 was not a public
purpose or that the same was vague. He submitted that the
appellants cannot make a complaint on this score because
they had filed detailed objections under Section 5A(1), which
were duly considered by the LAO. Dr. Dhawan emphasised c
that the declaration issued under Section 6(1) is in consonance
with the language of the statute and argued that the High Court
did not commit any error by refusing to quash Notifications
dated 28.2.2007 on the ground that in the first part thereof the
satisfaction of the appropriate Govemment has not been D
recorded. Learned senior counsel further argued that the
existence of a master plan or lay-out plan is not sine qua non
for the acquisition of land because the purposes specified in
Section 4(1) notification were identified public purposes. He
pointed out that substantial portion of the land acquired for E
Phase I and Phase II of IT Park had been allotted to IT
industries and the remaining portion was used for roads, parks,
etc., and argued that the cancellation of allotment of three IT
companies cannot lead to an inference that the acquired land
has not been utilised for development of IT Park. In the end,
Dr. Dhawan argued that the findings recorded by the Special F
Audit Team and the One-Man Committee cannot be made
basis for quashing the acquisition of land for Phase Ill of IT
Park. In support of his arguments, learned senior counsel relied
upon the judgments in Somawanti v. State of Punjab (supra),
Ganga Bishnu Swaika v. Calcutta Pinjrapole Society (supra), G
Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (supra), Gandhi Grah Nirman
Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (supra), State of T.N.
v. L. Krishnan (supra) and Ajay Krishan Shinghal v. Union of
India (supra).
H
1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A 34. We have given serious thought to the respective
arguments and carefully scrutinized the record of these petitions
as also the files made available by Shri Sudhir Walia, learned
counsel for the Chandigarh Administration.
B 35. We shall first consider the question whether the Advisor
to the Administrator had the jurisdiction to approve the
acquisition of the appellants' land. For deciding this question,
it will be useful to notice the provisions of Article 239 of the
Constitution (amended and unamended) and the notifications
issued under that Article. The same read as under:
c
"Prior to 1-11-56 "Afle( 1-11-56
Art. 239. Administration of States in Part C of the First
Schedule. - (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Part a
0 State specified in Part C of the First Schedule shall be
administered by the President acting to such extent as he thinks
fit, though a Chief Commissioner or a Lieutenant Governor to
be appointed by him or though the Government of a
neighbouring State.
E Provided that the President shall not act thorough the
Government of a neighbouring State save after -
(a) consulting the Government concerned and
F (b) ascertaining in such manner as the President considers
most appropriate the views of the people of the State to be so
administered.
(2) In this article, references to a State shall include
references to a part of a State."
G
239. Administration of Union territories. - (1) Save as
otherwise provided by Parliament by law, every Union territory
shall be administered by the President acting, to such extent
as he thinks fit, through an administrator appointed by him with
H such designation as he may specify.
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1135
UNION OF INDIAAND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Part VI, the A
President may appoint the Governor of a State as the
administrator of an adjoining Union territory, and where a
Governor is so appointed, he shall exercise his functions as
such Administrator independently of his Council of Ministers.
B
Substituted by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act,
1956."
"MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
New Delhi, the 1st November, 1966 c
S.0.3269.- Whereas under section 4 of the Punjab
Reorganisation Act, 1966 (31 of 1966), the territories
specified therein form the Union territory of Chandigarh on
and from the 1st day of November, 1966.
D
And whereas under section 88 of the said Act, the
provisions of Part II of the said Act shall not be deemed
to have effected any change in the territories to which any
law in force immediately before the 1st day of November,
1966, extends or applies, and territorial references in any E
such law to the State of Punjab shall, until otherwise
provided by a competent legislature or other competent
authority, be construed as meaning the territories within that
State immediately before the said day;
F
And whereas the powers exercisable by the State
Government under any such law as aforesaid are now
exercisable by the Central Government;
Now, therefore, in pursuance of clause (1) of article 239
of the Constitution, and all other powers enabling him in G
this behalf, the President hereby directs that, subject to his
control and until further orders, the Administrator of the
Union territory of Chandigarh shall, in relation to the said
territory, exercise and discharge, with effect from the 1st
H
1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A day of November, 1966, the powers and functions of the
State Government under any such law.
[No.13/V66-CHD]"
"No.5/1/66-CHD
B GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI-II, the 1st November, 1966.
NOTIFICATION
c G.S.R.1675-ln exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(1) of article 239 of the Constitution, the President hereby
directs that all orders and other instruments made and
executed in the name of Chief Commissioner of Union
Territory of Chandigarh shall be authenticated by the
D
signature of a Secretary/a Deputy Secretary an Under
Secretary, an Assistant Secretary in any of the departments
of the Chandigarh Administration. ·
Sd/-
E A.D.Pande,
JOINT SECRETARY"
"NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 8 October, 1968,
F
S.O. 3612 - In pursuance of clause (1) of article 239 of
the Constitution, and in partial modification of the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Home Affairs No.S.O. 3269 dated the 1st November,
G 1966, in so far as it relates to the exercise of powers and
functions under the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 (1 of 1894)
by the Administrator of the Union territorv of Chandigarh.
the President hereby directs that, subject to his control and
until further orders, the powers and functions of the
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1137
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
appropriate Government under - A
(i) the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894), except those
of the Central Government under the provisos to sub-
section (1) of section 55, and
(ii) the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963, 8
shall also be exercised and discharged by the
Administrator of the Union territory of Chandigarh, within
the said Union territory.
[No.F.2/8/68-UTL] C
Sd/-
(K.R. Prabhu)
Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India."
"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA D
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHl-1, the 1st January, 1970
11th Pausa, 1891 E
NOTIFICATION
S.O. 157 - In pursuance of clause (1) of article 239 of the
Constitution, and in partial modification of the notification
of the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs F
No.S.O. 3371, dated the 1st November, 1966, in so far as
it relates to the exercise of powers and functions under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894(1 of 1894) by the Administrator
of the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh, and in
supersession of the notifications of the Government of India G
in the Ministry of External Affairs No. S.O. 3165, dated the
5th November, 1963, and in the Ministry of Home Affairs
Nos. S.O. 190, dated the 8th January, 1964, S.O. 3953,
dated the 21st December, 1966 and S.O. 3612, dated the
8th October, 1968, the President hereby directs that, H
1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A subject his control and until further orders, the powers and
functions of the appropriate Government under-
(i) the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894), except
those of the Central Government under the provisos
to sub-section (1) of section 55, and
B
(ii) the Land Acquisition. (Companies) Rules, 1963,
shall also be exercised and discharged by the
Administrator of every Union territory (whether known as
c the Administrator, Chief Commissioner or the Lieutenant
Governor), within the respective Union territories.
(No.F.2/8/68-UTL)
Sd/-
D (P.N. KAUL)
DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA"
"BHARAT SARKAR I GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
GRIH MANTRALAYA I MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
E New Delhi, the 14th Aug, 89
NOTIFICATION
F S.0. 642(E) In pursuance of clause (1) of Article 239 of
the Constitution and in suppression of all previous
notifications relating to the exercise of power; and functions
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) by the
Administrator of various Union Territories except as
G respects things done or omitted to be done before such
suppression, the president hereby directs that subject to
his control and until further orders, the powers and functions
of the appropriate government in relation to a Union
Territory shall also be exercised and discharged by the
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. V.1139
UNION OF INDIAAND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
administrator of such Union Territory (Whether known as A
Administrator, Chief Commissioner or lieutenant governor)
within the respective union territory under:-
(i) the land acquisition Act 1894 (1 of 1894) except the
functions exercisable by the Central Government under the
provision to sub-section (1) of section 55 of the said Act; 8
and
(ii) the land acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963.
NO.U-11030/1/89-UTU c
Sd/-
(Ashok Nath)
Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India"
36. Notification dated 25.2.1988 issued under Section 3(1)
of the 1987 Act as also Notifications dated 2.6.1984, D
30.5.1985, 27 .11.1999, 8.5.2003, 1.10.2004, 4.11.2004 and
17.11.2004 on which reliance was placed by Dr. Rajeev
Dhawan are reproduced below:
"CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION E
HOME DEPARTMENT
Notification
The 25th February. 1988.
No. LD-88/1302.-ln. exercise of the powers conferred by F
sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Chandigarh (Delegation
of Powers) Act, 1987 (No. 2 of 1988), the Administrator,
Union Territory, Chandigarh is pleased to direct that any
power, authority or jurisdiction or any duty which the
Administrator may exercise or discharge by or under the G
provisions of any law, rules or regulations as are applicable
in the Union Territory, Chandigarh on the date of this
notification shall be exercised or discharged by the Adviser
to the Administrator except in cases or class of cases (as
men-tioned in the Schedule annexed hereto) which shall H
1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A be submitted to the Administrator for final orders:-
SCHEDULE
(i) Proposals regarding suspension, remission of
sentences under section 432 of the Code of
B Criminal Procedure.
(ii) Cases raising question of policy and cases of
administrative importance.
(iii) Cases which effect or are likely to effect peace and
c tranquility of the State.
(iv) Cases which effect the relations of Union Territory
Administration with other State Governments, the
Supreme Court or the High Court.
D
(v) Constitution of Advisory Boards under the various
laws providing for detention of persons without trial.
(vi) Proposals for the prosecution, dismissal, removal
or compulsory retirement of any Class-I Officer.
E
(vii) Proposals for the appointment of any Class-I
Officer.
(viii) Proposals regarding framing of rules of Class-I
Officers including amendment of these rules.
F
(ix) Cases relating to the application of Acts of
Parliament or extension of any State Act under
section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act to the
Union Territory, Chandigarh.
G
(x) Cases where modification of the orders passed
by the predecessors of the present Administrator
are involved.
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1141
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
(xi) Proposals for the creation or abolition of Class-I A
posts.
(xii) Such other cases or class of cases as the
Administrator may consider necessary or such
other cases where his orders are necessarily to be B
he obtained under a Statute, for instance granting
sanction to the launching of prosecution under
section 196 Cr PC or any other Criminal Law.
By order and in the name
of Administrator C
(Sd.)
P. K. VERMA,
Home Secretary,
· Chandigarh Administration."
D
"No.U.14020/17/84 - UTS
Government of India
Ministry of Home Affairs
New Delhi-110001, the 2nd June, 1984.
E
NOTIFICATION
Consequent upon the concurrent appointment of Shri
B.D. Pande, Governor of Punjab, as Administrator of the
Union Territory of Chandigarh, Shri K. Banarji, IAS (UT : F
1954 112), Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh will be
redesignated as Adviser to the Administrator of the Union
Territory of Chandigarh.
(Baleshwar Rai)
Deputy Secretary to the Government of India." G
"(FOR PUBLICATION IN THE GAZETIE OF INDIA
PART I SECTION 2)
H
1142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A No.U.14020/17/84 - UTS. Pt.
Government of India
Ministry of Home Affairs
New Delhi-110001, the 30th May, 1985.
8
NOTIFICATION
Consequent upon the concurrent appointment of Shri Arjun
Singh, Governor of Punjab, as Administrator of the Union
Territory of Chandigarh, Shri K. Banarji, IAS (UT: 1954
c 1/2), Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh will be
redesignated as Adviser to the Administrator of the Union
Territory of Chandigarh.
(Baleshwar Rai)
D Director."
"CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
NOTIFICATION
E
The 27 November, 1999
No.1015-GOl-IH (4)-99/22972
Consequent upon the appointment of Lieutenant-
F General (Reid.) Jack Frederick Ralph Jacob, PVSM,
Governor of Punjab as Administrator of the Union Territory
of Chandigarh in addition to his duties as Governor of
Punjab vide order of the President of India, dated the 19th
November, 1999 conveyed vide Rashtrapati Bhawan
G communication bearing No.F.29-CA(l)/99, dated the 19th
November, 1999, Lieutenant General (retd.) Jack
Frederick Ralph Jacob, PVSM has assumed charge as
Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh on the
forenoon of 27th November, 1999.
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1143
UNION OF INDIAAND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
N.K. Jain A
Home Secretary
Chandigarh Administration."
"CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
B
NOTIFICATION
The 8th May, 2003
No.IH (4)-2003/8264
c
Consequent upon the appointment of Shri Justice
Om Prakash Verma (Retd.), Governor of Punjab as
Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh in
addition to his duties as Governor of Punjab vide order of
the President of India, dated the 2nd May, 2003, conveyed D
vide Rashtrapati Bhawan communication bearing No.F.31-
CA(l)/2003, dated the 2nd May, 2003. Justice Om
Prakash Verma (Retd.) has assumed charge as
Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh on the
forenoon of 8th May, 2003. E
R.S. Gujral,
Home Secretary]
Chandigarh Administration."
"CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION F
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
NOTIFICATION
September, 2004 G
1st Oct. 2004
No.IH (4)-2004/18018
Consequent upon the appointment of Dr. Akhlaq-ur-
H
1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A Rahman Kidwai, Governor of Punjab as Administrator of
the Union Territory of Chandigarh in addition to his duties
as Governor of Punjab vide order of the President of India,
dated the 28th September, 2004 conveyed vide
Rashtrapati Bhawan communication bearing No.F.31-
B CA(l)/2004, dated the 28th September, 2004, Dr. Akhlaq-
ur-Rahman Kidwai has assumed charge as Administr;itor
of the Union Territory of Chandigarh on the afternoon of
30th September, 2004.
R.S. Gujral,
c Home Secretary
Chandigarh Administration.•
"CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
D
NOTIFICATION
4.11.2004
No.22/S/39/IH (4)-2004/20197
E
Consequent upon the appointment of Dr. Akhlaq-ur-
Rahman Kid~ai, Governor of Punjab as Administrator of
the Union Territory of Chandigarh in addition to his duties
as Governor of Punjab vide order of the President of India,
dated the 30th October, 2004 conveyed vide Rashtrapati
F Bhawan communication bearing No.F.31-CA(l)/2004,
dated the 30th October, 2004, Dr. Akhlaq-ur-Rahman
Kidwai has assumed charge as Administrator of the Union
Territory of Chandigarh on the forenoon of the 3rd
November, 2004.
G
R. S. Gujral,
Home Secretary
Chandigarh Administration."
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1145
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
"CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION A
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
NOTIFICATION
The 17th November, 2004
B
No.22/S/39/IH (4)-2004/20890
Consequent upon the appointment of General
(Reid.) S. F. Rodrigues, PVSM, VSM, Governor of Punjab
as Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh in c
addition to his duties as Governor of Punjab vide order of
the President of India, dated the 8th November, 2004,
conveyed vide Rashtrapati Bhawan communication
bearing No.F.31-CA(l)/2004, dated the 8th November,
2004, General (Reid.) S. F. Rodrigues, PVSM, VSM, has
assumed charge as Administrator of the Union Territory of D
Chandigarh on the afternoon of 18th November, 2004.
R. S. Gujral,
Home Secretary
Chandigarh Administration." E
37. We may also take cognizance of Notifications dated
12.1.2001, 15.1.2003, 11.9.2003, 21.11.2003, 1.1.2007 by
which different officers of Indian Administrative Service were
appointed/given charge of the post of Adviser, Union Territory, F
Chandigarh. The same read as under:
"CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
NOTIFICATION G
Dated, the 12th January, 2001.
No.59(GOl)-IH (4)-2001/786
Consequent upon het appointment as Adviser to the H
1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012) 12 S.C.R.
A Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, Ms. Neeru
Nanda, IAS (AGMU:71) took over charge of the said post
with effect from 12.01.2001 (forenoon) from Smt. Vineeta
Rai, IAS (AGMU:68).
B
R.S. Gujral,
Home Secretary
Chandigarh Administration."
"CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
c
NOTIFICATION
Dated, the 15.1.2003.
No.IH (4)-2002/913
D
Consequent upon his appointment as Adviser to the
Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, Sh. Virendra
Singh, IAS (AGMU:1969) took over charge of the said
post with effect from the forenoon of 8.1.2003.
E R.S. Gujral,
Home Secretary
Chandigarh Administration."
"CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION
F DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
ORDER
In pursuance of the Government of India, Ministry of
Home Affairs, New Delhi's order bearing Ends!. No.
G 14020/ 9/2002-UTS.I, dated the 10th September, 2003,
the Administrator, Union Territory. Chandigarh is pleased
to relieve Sh. Virendra Singh, IAS (AGMU:69), of the
charge of Adviser to the Administrator, Union Territory,
Chandigarh, with immediate effect.
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1147
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
2. In pursuance of the aforesaid orders of the Government A
of India dated the 10th September, 2003, the
Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, is further
pleased to entrust the current charge of the post of Adviser
to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh to Sh.
R.S. Gujral, IAS (HY:76), Home Secretary, Chandigarh B
Administration, in addition to his own duties, until further
orders.
Chandigarh, dated (By order and in the name
The 11th September, 2003 of Administrator, Union
Territory, Chandigarh) c
Ashok Sangwan,
Joint Secretary Personnel,
Chandigarh Administration"
D
"CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
NOTIFICATION
Dated, the 21.11.2003. E
No.IH (4)-2003/21655
Consequent upon his appointment as Adviser to the
Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, Sh. Lalit
Sharma, IAS (AGMU:1971) has taken over the charge of F
the said post with effect from the afternoon of 21.11.2003,
relieving Sh. R.S. Gujral, IAS (HY-1976), Home Secretary,
Chandigarh Administration, of this additional charge.
R.S. Gujral, G
Home Secretary
Chandigarh Administration."
"CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
H
1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A NOTIFICATION
Dated, the 01.01.07
No.22/2/47-IH (4)-2007/19619
B Consequent upon his appointment as Adviser to the
Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, Sh. Pradip
Mehra, IAS (AGMU:1975) assumed the charge of the said
post with effect from the afternoon of 30.09.2007.
Krishna Mohan,
c Home Secretary
Chandigarh Administration."
38. The unamended Article 239 envisaged administration
of the States specified in Part C of the First Schedule of the
D Constitution by the President through a Chief Commissioner
or a Lieutenant Governor to be appointed by him or through the
Government of a neighbouring State. This was subject to other
provisions of Part VIII of the Constitution. As against this,
amended Article 239 lays down that subject to any law enacted
E by Parliament every Union Territory shall be administered by
the President acting through an Administrator appointed by him
with such designation as he may specify. In terms of Clause
(2) of Article 239 (amended), the President can appoint the
Governor of a State as an Administrator of an adjoining Union
F territory and on his appointment, the Governor is required to
exercise his function as an Administrator independently of his
Council of Ministers. The difference in the language of the
unamended and amended Article 239 makes it clear that prior
to 1.11.1956, the President could administer Part C State
G through a Chief Commissioner or a Lieutenant Governor, but,
after the amendment, every Union Territory is required to be
administered by the President through an Administrator
appointed by him with such designation as he may specify. In
terms of Clause 2 of Article 239 (amended), the President is
H empowered to appoint the Governor of State as the
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1149
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Administrator to an adjoining Union Territory and once A
appointed, the Governor, in his capacity as Administrator, has
to act independently of the Council of Ministers of the State of
which he is the Governor.
39. A reading of the Notification issued on 1.11.1966
shows that in exercise of the power vested in him under Article B
239(1), the President directed that the Administrator shall
exercise the power and discharge the functions of the State
Government under the laws which were in force immediately
before formation of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. This was
subject to the President's own control and until further orders. C
By another notification issued on the same day, the President
directed that all orders and other instruments made and
executed in the name of the Chief Commissioner of Union
Territory of Chandigarh shall be authenticated by the signatures
of the specified officers. These notifications clearly brought out D
the distinction between the position of the Administrator and
the Chief Commissioner insofar as the Union Territory of
Chandigarh was concerned. Subsequently, the President
appointed the Governor of Punjab as Administrator of the Union
Territory of Chandigarh and separate notifications were issued E
for appointment of Adviser to the Administrator. The officers
appointed as Adviser are invariably members of the Indian
Administrative Service.
40. After about 2 years of the issuance of the first F
notification under Article 239(1) of the Constitution, by which
the powers and functions exercisable by the State Government
under various laws were generally entrusted to the Administrator,
Notification dated 8.10.1968 was issued and the earlier
notification was modified insofar as it related to the exercise
of powers and functions by the Administrator under the Act and G
the President directed that subject to his control and until further
orders, the powers and functions of 'the appropriate
Government' shall also be exercised and discharged by the
Administrator. Notification dated 8.10.1968 was superseded
H
1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A by Notification dated 1.1.1970 and the President directed that
subject to his control and until further orders, the powers and
functions of 'the appropriate Government' shall also be
exercised and discharged by the Administrator of every Union
Territory whether known as the Administrator, the Chief
B Commissioner or the Lieutenant Governor. The last notification
in the series was issued on 14.8.1989 superseding all previous
Notifications. The language of that notification is identical to
the language of Notification dated 1.1.1970.
41. There is marked distinction in the language of the
C notifications issued under Article 239(1) of the Constitution. By
notification dated 1.11.1966, the President generally delegated
the powers and functions of the State Government under
various laws in force immediately before 1.11.1966 to the
Administrator. By all other notifications, the power exercisable
D by 'the appropriate Government' under the Act and the Land
Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 were delegated to the
Administrator. It is not too difficult to fathom the reasons for
this departure from notification dated 1.11.1966. The Council
of Ministers whose advice constitutes the foundation of the
E decision taken by the President was very much conscious of
the fact that compulsory acquisition of land, though sanctioned
by the provision of the Act not only impacts lives and livelihood
of the farmers and other small landholders, but also adversely
affect the agricultural and environment and ecology of the area.
F Therefore, with a view to avoid any possibility of misuse of
power by the executive authorities, it has been repeatedly
ordained that powers and functions vested in 'the appropriate
Government' under the Act and the 1963 Rules shall be
exercised only by the Administrator. The use of the expression
G 'shall also be exercised and discharged' in Notifications dated
8.10.1968, 1.1.1970 and 14.8.1989 is a clear pointer in this
direction. The seriousness with which the Central Government
has viewed such type of acquisition is also reflected from the
decision taken by the Home Minister on 23.9.2010 in the
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1151
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
context of the report of the Special Auditor and the One-Man A
Committee. Thus, the acquisition of land for and on behalf of
Union Territories must be sanctioned by the Administrator of
the particular Union Territory and no other officer is competent
to exercise the power vested in 'the appropriate Government'
under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. B
42. We may now advert to Notification dated 25.2.1988
issued under Section 3(1) of the 1987 Act, vide which the
Administrator directed that any power, authority or jurisdiction
or any duty which he C!>uld exercise or discharge by or under
the provisions of any law, rules or regulations as applicable to C
the Union Territory of Chandigarh shall be exercised or
discharged by the Adviser except in cases or class of cases
enumerated in the Schedule. There is nothing in the language
of Section 3(1) of the 1987 Act from which it can be inferred
that the Administrator can delegate the power exercisable by D
'the appropriate Government' under the Act which was
specifically entrusted to him by the President under Article
239(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, notification dated
25.2.1988 cannot be relied upon for contending that the
Administrator had delegated the power of 'the appropriate E
Government' to the Adviser.
43. The issue deserves to be considered from another
angle. While delegating the power, authority or jurisdiction
vested in him by or under any law, rules or regulations as F
applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, the
Administrator had used the expression 'on the date of this
notification'. This necessarily implies that the power of 'the
appropriate Government' conferred upon or entrusted to the
Administrator by the President under Article 239(1) after G
25.2.1988 were not delegated to the Adviser. It is also apposite
to note that Notification dated 14.8.1,989 was issued under
Article 239(1) in supersession of all previous notifications
relating to the exercise of power and functions under the Act
by the Administrators of various Union Territories. Therefore, H
1152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A even if it is assumed that vide Notification dated 25.2.1988 the
Administrator had authorised the Adviser to exercise the power
of 'the appropriate Government' under the Act, after the
issuance of Notification dated 14.8.1989, the said delegation
will be deemed to have ceased insofar as the exercise of
B power of 'the appropriate Government' under the Act and the
Rules framed thereunder is concerned and in the absence of
fresh delegation by the Administrator, the Adviser could not
have exercised the power of the appropriate Government and
sanctioned the acquisition of land for the purposes specified
C in Notifications dated 26.6.2006 and 2.8.2006 nor could he
symbolically accept the recommendations of the LAO and
record his satisfaction on the issue of need of land for the
specified public purposes.
44. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the
D Adviser to the Administrator was not competent to accord
approval to the initiation of the acquisition proceedings or take
decision on the reports submitted by the LAO under Section
5-A (2) of the Act and record his satisfaction that the land was
needed for the specified public purpose.
E
45. The next question which requires determination is
whether the reports prepared by the LAO under Section 5A(2)
were vitiated due to non-consideration of the objections filed
by the landowners and the same could not be made basis for
F deciding whether the land was really needed for the particular
public purpose. A cursory reading of the reports of the LAO may
give an impression that he had applied mind to the objections
filed under Section 5A(1) and assigned reasons for not
entertaining the same, but a careful analysis thereof leaves no
G doubt that the officer concerned had not at all applied mind to
the objections of the landowners and merely created a facade
of doing so. In the opening paragraph under the heading
"Observations", the LAO recorded that he had seen the revenue
records and conducted spot inspection. He then reproduced
the Statement of Objects and Reasons contained in the Bill
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1153
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
which led to the enactment of the Punjab New Capital A
(Periphery) Control Act, 1952 and proceed to extract some
portion of reply dated 31.7.2006 sent by the Administrator to
Surinder Singh Brar.
46. In the context of the statement contained in the first line
8
of the paragraph titled "Observations'', we repeatedly asked
Shri Sudhir Walia, learned counsel assisting Dr. Rajiv Dhawan
to show as to when the LAO had summoned the revenue
records and when he had conducted spot inspection but the
learned counsel could not produce any document to
substantiate the statement contained in the two reports of the C
LAO. This leads to an inference that, in both the reports, the
LAO had made a misleading and false statement about his
having seen the revenue records and conducted spot
inspection. That apart, the reports do not contain any iota of
consideration of the objections filed by the landowners. Mere D
reproduction of the substance of the objections cannot be
equated with objective consideration thereof in the light of the
submission made by the objectors during the course of hearing.
Thus, the violation of the mandate of Section 5A(2) is writ large .
on the face of the reports prepared by the LAO. E
47. The reason why the LAO did not apply his mind to the
objections filed by the appellants and other landowners is
obvious. He was a minion in the hierarchy of the administration
of the Union Territory of Chandigarh and could not have even F
thought of making recommendations contrary lo what was
contained in the letter sent by the Administrator to Surinder
Singh Brar. If he had shown the courage of acting
independently and made recommendation against the
acquisition of land, he would have surely been shifted from that G
post and his career would have been jeopardized. In the
system of governance which we have today, junior officers in
the administration cannot even think of, what to say of, acting
against the wishes/dictates of their superiors. One who violates
this unwritten code of conduct does so at his own peril and is
H
1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.'
A described as a foolhardy. Even those constituting higher strata
of services follow the path of least resistance and find it most
convenient to tow the line of their superiors. Therefore, the LAO
cannot be blamed for having acted as an obedient subordinate
of the superior authorities, including the Administrator.
B However, that cannot be a legitimate ground to approve the
reports prepared by him without even a semblance of
consideration of the objections filed by the appellants and other
landowners and we have no hesitation to hold that the LAO
failed to discharge the statutory duty cast upon him to prepare
c a report after objectively considering the objections filed under
Section 5A(1) and submissions made by the objectors during
the course of personal hearing.
48. The Special Secretary, Finance and the Adviser to the
Administrator also failed to act in consonance with the mandate
D of Section 5A(2) read with Section 6(1 ). They could oot muster
courage of expressing an independent opinion on the issue of
compliance of Section 5A and need of the land for the specified
public purposes. The noting recorded by the Special
Secretary, Finance, which has been extracted hereinabove
E shows that the officer had virtually reproduced what the.
Administrator had mentioned in his letter dated 31 .7.2006. The
Adviser went a step further. He merely appended his
signatures on the note recorded by the Special Secretary,
Finance forgetting that in terms of the aforementioned two
F sections 'the appropri~te Government' is required to take
decision after considering the report of the LAO. The least
which can be said about the manner in which the Adviser
approved the note prepared by the Special Secretary, Finance
is that there was abject failure on the part of the concerned
G officer to discharge his duty despite the fact that he was
entrusted with the onerous task of taking a decision on behalf
of 'the appropriate Government' after considering the reports
of the LAO. The casual manner in which the senior officers of
the Chandigarh Administration dealt with the serious issue of
H the acquisition of land of citizens signifies their total lack of
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1155
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
respect for the constitutional provision contained in Article A
300A, the law enacted by Parliament, that is, the Act and
interpretation thereof by the Courts. It seems that the officers
were overawed by the view expressed by the Administrator and
the instinct of self-preservation prompted them not to go against
the wishes of the Administrator who wanted that additional land B
be acquired in the name of expansion of IT Park despite the
fact that a substantial portion of the land acquired for Phase II
had been allotted to a private developer.
49. At this stage, it will be useful to notice the provisions C
of Sections 3(ee), 3(f) (as substituted by Act No.68 of 1984),
4(1), SA and 6(1). The same read as under:
"3(ee) the expression "appropriate Governmenf' means,
in relation to acquisition of land for the purposes of the
Union, the Central Government, and, in relation to D
acquisition of land for any other purposes, the State
Government;
3 (f) the expression 'public purpose' includes-
(i) the provision of village- sites, or the extension, planned E
development or improvement of existing village- sites;
(ii) the provision of land for town or rural planning;
(iii) the provision of land for planned development of land F
from public funds in pursuance of any scheme or policy of
Government and subsequent disposal thereof in whole or
in part by lease, assignment or outright sale with the object
of securing further development as planned;
(iv) the provision of land for a corporation owned or G
controlled by the State;
(v) the provision of land for residential purposes to the poor
or landless or to persons residing in areas affected by
natural calamities, or to persons displaced or affected by H
1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A reason of the implementation of any scheme undertaken
by Government, any local authority or a corporation owned
or controlled by the State;
(vi) the provision of land for carrying out any educational,
housing, health or slum clearance scheme sponsored by
B
Government or by any authority established by Government
for carrying out any such scheme, or with the prior approval
of the appropriate Government, by a local authority, or a
society registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860 (21 of 1860 ), or under any corresponding law for
c the time being in force in a state, or a co- operative society
within the meaning of any law relating to co- operative
societies for the time being in force in any State;
(vii) the provision of land for any other scheme of
D development sponsored by Government or with the prior
approval of the appropriate Government, by a local
authority;
(viii) the provision of any premises or building for locating
a public office, but does not include acquisition of land for
E
companies;
4. Publication of preliminary notification and power of
officers thereupon.-
F (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government
the land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed
for any public purpose or for a company, a notification to
that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and in
two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which
G at least one shall be in the regional language, and the
Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such
notification to be given at convenient places in the said
locality the last of the dates of such publication and the
giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to
as the date of the publication of the notification.
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v. 1157
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
)()()( )()()( )()()( A
5A. Hearing of objections.-
(1) Any person interested in any land which has been
notified under section 4, sub- section (1 ), as being needed
or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a B
Company may, within thirty days from the date of the
publication of the notification, object to the acquisition of
the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be.
(2) Every objection under sub- section (1) shall be made c
to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the
objector an opportunity of being heard[ in person or by any
person authorized by him in this behalij or by pleader and
shall, after hearing all such objections and after making
such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either D
make a report in respect of the land which has been
notified under section 4, sub- section (1 ), or make different
reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the
appropriate Government, containing his recommendations
on the objections, together with the record of the E
proceedings held by him, for the decision of that
Government. The decision of the appropriate Governmeni
on the objections shall be final.
(3) For the purpose of this section, a person shall be
deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to F
claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired
under this Act.
6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose.-
(1) Subject to the provision of Part VII of this Act, when the G
appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the
report, if any, made under section 5A, sub- section (2), that
any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for
a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect
H
1158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or
of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders and
different declarations may be made from time to time in
respect of different parcels of any land covered by the
same notification under section 4, sub- section (I)
B irrespective of whether one report or different reports has
or have been made (wherever required) under section SA,
sub-section (2):
Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular
land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section
c (1),-
(i) published after the commencement of the Land
Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967
(1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land
D Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after
the expiry of three years from the date of the publication
of the notification; or
(ii) published after the commencement of the Land
Acquisition (Amendmen~) Act, 1984, shall be made after
E
the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of
the notification:
Provided further that no such declaration shall be made
unless the compensation to be awarded for such property
F is to be paid by a Company, or wholly or partly put of public
revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local
authority.
Explanation 1.-ln computing any of the periods referred
to in the first proviso, the period during which any action
G
or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification
issued under section 4, sub-section (1 ), is stayed by an
order of a Court shall be excluded.
Explanation 2.-Where the compensation to be awarded
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v. 1159
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
for such property is to be paid out of the funds of a A
corporation owned or controlled by the State, such
compensation shall be deemed to be compensation paid
out of public revenues.
(2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official
8
Gazette, and in two daily newspapers circulating in the
locality in which the land is situate of which at least one
shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall
cause public notice of the substance of such declaration
to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the C
last of the date of such publication and the giving of such
public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of
the publication of the declaration), and such declaration
shall state the district or other territorial division in which
the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its
approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been D
made of the land, the place where such plan may be
inspected.
(3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that
the land is needed for a public purpose or for a Company, E
as the case may be; and, after making such declaration,
the appropriate Government may acquire the land in
manner hereinafter appearing."
50. Section 4(1) lays down that whenever it appears to the
appropr!ate Government that land in any locality is needed or F
is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company,
then a notification to that effect is required to be published in
the Official Gazette and two daily newspapers having circulation
in the locality. Of these, one paper has to be in the regional
language. A duty is also cast on the Collector, as defined in G
Section 3(c), to cause public notice of the substance of such
notification to be given at convenient places in the locality: The
last date of publication and giving of public notice is treated
as the date of publication of the notification.
H
1160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A 51. Section 5A, which embodies the most important
dimension of the rules of natural justice, lays down that any
person interested in any land notified under Section 4(1) may,
within 30 days of publication of the notification, submit objection
in writing against the proposed acquisition of land or of any land
B in the locality to the Collector. The Collector is required to give
the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or
by any person authorised by him or by pleader. After hearing
the objector(s) and making such further inquiry, as he may think
necessary, the Collector has to make a report in respect of land
c notified under Section 4(1) with his recommendations on the
objections and forward the same to the Government along with
the record of the proceedings held by him. The Collector can
make different reports in respect of different parcels of land
proposed to be acquired.
D 52. Upon receipt of the Collector's report, the appropriate
Government is required to take action under Section 6(1) which
lays down that after considering the report, if any, made under
Section 5-A(2), the appropriate Government is satisfied that
any particular land is needed for a public purpose, then a
E declaration to that effect is required to be made under the
signatures of a Secretary to the Government or of some officer
duly authorised to certify its orders. This section also envisages
making of different declarations from time to time in respect of
different parcels of land covered by the same notification issued
F under Section 5(1 ). In terms of clause (ii) of the proviso to
Section 6(1 }, no declaration in respect of any particular land
covered by a notification issued under Section 4(1 ), which is
published after 24-9-1989 can be made after expiry of one year
from the date of publication of the notification. To put it
G differently, a declaration is required to be made under Section
6(1) within one year from the date of publication of the
notification under Section 4(1).
53. In terms of Section 6(2), every declaration made under
H Section 6(1) is required to be published in the Official Gazette
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1161
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
and in two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality in A
which the land proposed to be acquired is situated. Of these,
at least one must be in the regional language. The Collector is
also required to cause public notice of the substance of such
declaration to be given at convenient places in the locality. The
declaration to be published under Section 6(2) must contain the B
district or other territorial division in which the land is situate,
the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area or a
plan is made in respect of land and the place where such plan
can be inspected.
54. Section 6(3) lays down that the declaration made under C
Section 6(1) shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that land
is needed for a public purpose. After publication of the
declaration under Section 6, the Collector is required to take
order from the State Government for the acquisition of land to
be carved out and measured and planned (Sections 7 and 8). D
The next stage as envisaged is issue of public notice and
individual notice to the persons interested in the land to file their
claim for compensation. Section 11 envisages holding of an
enquiry into the claim and passing of an award by the Collector
who is required to take into consideration the provisions E
contained in Section 23.
55. In Nandeshwar Prasad and Anr. v. The State of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors. (1964) 3 SCR 425, this Court observed that
the right to file objections under Section 5-A is a substantial ·F
right when a person's property is being threatened with
acquisition. In Munshi Singh v. Union of India (1973) 2 SCC
337, the importance of the rule of hearing embodied in Section
5-A was highlighted in the following words:
"Section 5-A embodies a very just and wholesome G
principle that a person whose property is being or is
intended to be acquired should have a proper and
reasonable opportunity of persuading the authorities
concerned that acquisition of the property belonging to that
_person should not be made. We may refer to the H
1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 12 S.C.R.
A observation of this court in Nandeshwar Prasad v. State
of U.P that the right to file objections under Section 5-A is
a substantial right when a person's property is being
threatened with acquisition and that right cannot be taken
away as if by a side wind. Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A
B makes it obligatory on the Collector to give an objector an
opportunity of being heard. After hearing all objections and
making further inquiry he is to make a report to the
appropriate Government containing his recommendation
on the objections. The decision of the appropriate
c Government on the objections is then final. The declaration
under Section 6 has to be made after the appropriate
Government is satisfied. on a consideration of the report.
if any, made by the Collector under Section 5-A(2). The
legislature has, therefore, made complete provisions for
the persons interested to file objections against the
D
proposed acquisition and for the disposal of their
objections."
(emphasis supplied)
E 56. In State of Punjab v. Gurdia/ Singh (1980) 2 SCC 471,
the Court observed:
•...... it is fundamental that compulsory taking of a man's
property is a serious matter and the smaller the man the
more serious the matter. Hearing him before depriving him
F is both reasonable and pre-emptive of arbitrariness, and
denial of this administrative fairness is constitutional
anathema except for good reasons."
57. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius
G Shapur Chenai (2005) 7 SCC 627, this Court analysed
Section 5-A in the following words:
• ........... Section 5-A of the Act is in two parts. Upon
receipt of objections, the Collector is required to make
such further enquiry as he may think necessary whereupon
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v. 1163
UNION OF INDIAAND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
he must submit a report to the appropriate Government in A
respect of the land which is the subject-matter of
notification under Section 4( 1) of the Act. The said report
would also contain recommendations on the objections
filed by the owner of the land. He is required to forward
the records of the proceedings held by him together with B
the report. On receipt of such a report together with the
records of the case, the Government is to render a
decision thereupon. It is now well settled in view of a
catena of decisions that the declaration made under
Section 6 of the Act need not contain any reason. ... .. . ... . c
However, considerations of the objections by the owner of
the land and the acceptance of the recommendations by
the Government, it is trite, must precede a proper
application of mind on the part of the Government. ......... .
Furthermore, the State is required to apply its mfnd not
0
only on the objections filed by the owner of the land but also
on the report which is submitted by the Collector upon
making other and further enquiries therefor as also the
recommendations made by him in that behalf. The State
Government may further inquire into the matter, if any case
is made out therefor, for arriving at its own satisfaction that E
it is necessary to deprive a citizen of his right to property."
58. What needs to be emphasised is that hearing required
to be given under Section 5A(2) to a person who is sought to
be deprived of his land and who has filed objections under F
Section 5A(1) must be effective and not an empty formality. The
Collector who is enjoined with the task of hearing the objectors
has the freedom of making further enquiry as he may think
necessary. In either eventuality, he has to make report in respect
of the land notified under Section 4(1) or make different reports G
in respect of different parcels of such land to the appropriate
Government containing his recommendations on the objections
'and submit the same to the appropriate Government along with
the record of proceedings held by him for the latter's decision.
The appropriate Government is obliged to consider the report, H
1164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A if any, made under Section 5A(2) and then record its
satisfaction that the particular land is needed for a public
purpose. This exercise culminates into making a declaration
that the land is needed for a public purpose and the declaration
is to be signed by a Secretary to the Government or some other
B officer duly aijthorised to certify its orders. The formation of
opinion on the issue of need of land for a public purpose and
suitability thereof is sine qua non for issue of a declaration
under Section 6(1 ). Any violation of the substantive right of the
landowners and/or other interested persons to file objections
C or denial of opportunity of personal hearing to the objector(s)
vitiates the recommendations made by the Collector and the
decision taken by the appropriate Government on such
recommendations. The recommendations made by the
Collector without duly considering the objections filed under
Section 5A(1) and submissions made at the hearing given
0
under Section 5A(2) or failure of the appropriate Government
to take objective decision on such objections in the light of the
recommendations made by the Collector will denude the
decision of the appropriate Government of statutory finality. To
put it differently, the satisfaction recorded by the appropriate
E Government that the particular land is needed for a public
purpose and the declaration made under Section 6(1) will be
devoid of legal sanctity if statutorily engrafted procedural
safeguards are not adhered to by the concerned authorities or
there is violation of the principles of natural justice. The cases
F before us are illustrative of flagrant violation of the mandate of
Sections 5A(2) and 6(1). Therefore, the second question is
answered in affirmative.
59. Before parting with this aspect of the case, we consider
G it proper to deal with the two judgments relied upon by Dr.
Dhawan in support of his submission that the declaration
issued under Section 6(1) is conclusive and the satisfaction
recorded by the competent authority cannot be subjected to
judicial review. In Somawanti v. State of Punjab (supra), after
H analysing the relevant provisions, the majority of the Constitution
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1165
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Bench observed: A
"The scheme of the Act is that normally the provisions of
Section 5-A have to be complied with. Where, in
pursuance of the provisions. objections are lodged. these
objections will have to be decided by the Government. For B
deciding them the Government will have before it the
Collector's proceedings. It would. therefore. be clear that
the declaration that a particular land is needed for a public
purpose for a company is not to be made by the
Government arbitrarily. but on the basis-of material placed
before it by the Collector. The provision of sub-section (2) C
of Section 5-A make the decision of the Government on
the objections final while those of sub-section (1) of
Section 6 enable the Government to arrive at its
satisfaction. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 goes further and
says that such a declaration shall be conclusive evidence D
that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a
company.
The Government has to be satisfied about both the
elements contained in the expression "needed for a public E
purpose or a company". Where it is so satisfied, it is
entitled to make a declaration. Once such a declaration
is made sub-section (3) invests it with conclusiveness. That
conclusiveness is not merely regarding the fact that the
Government is satisfied but also with regard to the F
question that the land is needed for a public purpose or is
needed for a company, as the case may be. Then again,
the conclusiveness must necessarily attach not merely to
the need but also to the question whether the purpose is
a public purpose or what is said to be a company is a G
company. There can be no "need" in the abstract. It must
be a need for a "public purpose" or for a company.
The Act has empowered the Government to determine the
question of the need of land for a public purpose or for a
company and the jurisdiction conferred upon it to do so is H
1166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A not made conditional upon the existence of a collateral or
extraneous fact. It is the existence of the need for a public
purpose which gives jurisdiction to the Government to
make a declaration under Section 6(1) and makes it the
sole judge whether there is in fact a need and whether the
B purpose for which there is that need is a public purpose.
The provisions of sub-section (3) preclude a court from
ascertaining whether either of these ingredients of the
declaration exists."
(emphasis supplied)
c
60. In Ganga Bishnu Swaika v. Calcutta Pinjrapole
Society (supra), the two-Judge Bench considered the
amendment made in the Act in 1923 and observed:
D
"As sub-section (1) stood prior to 1923 the words were
"subject to the provisions of Part VII of the Act, when it
appears to the Local Government that any particular land
is needed for a public purpose or for a Company, a
declaration shall be made etc. The amendment of 1923
dropped these words and substituted the words ''when the
E Local Government is satisfied after considering the report,
if any, made under Section 5-A, sub-section (2)" etc. J!
seems that the amendment was considered necessary
because the same Amendment Act inserted Section 5-A
for the first time in the Act which gave a right to persons
F interested in the land to be acquired to file objections and
of being heard thereon by the Collector. The new section
enjoined upon the Collector to consider such objections
and make a report to the Government, whose decision on
such objections was made final. One reason why the word
G "satisfaction" was substituted for the word "appears" seems
to be that since it was the Government who after
considering the objections and the report of the Collector
thereon was to arrive at its decision and then make the
declaration· required by sub-section (2). the appropriate
H words would be "when tl=le Local Government is satisfied"
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1167
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
rather than the words "when it appears to the Local A
Government". The other reason which presumably led to
the change in the language was to bring the words in sub-
section (1) of Section 6 in line with the words used in
Section 40 where the Government before granting its
consent to the acquisition for a Company has to "be B
satisfied" on an inquiry held as provided thereinafter. Since
the Amendment Act 38 of 1923 provided an inquiry into
the objections of persons interested in the land under
Section 5-A, Section 40 also was amended by adding
therein the words "either on the report of the Collector c
under Section 5-A or''. Section 41 which requires the
acquiring Company to enter into an agreement with the
Government also required satisfaction of the Government
after considering the report on the inquiry held under
Section 40. The Amendment Act 38 of 1923 now added D
in Section 41 the report of the Collector under Section 5-
A, if any. These amendments show that even prior to the
1923 Amendment Act, whenever the Government was
required by the Act to consider a report, the legislature had
used the word satisfaction on the part of the Government. E
Since the Amendment Act 1923 introduced Section 5-A
requiring the Collector to hold an inquiry and to make a
report and required the Government to consider that report
and the objections dealt with in it, the legislature
presumably thought it appropriate to use the same
expression which it had used in Sections 40 and 41 where F
also an inquiry was provided for and the Government had
to consider the report of the officer making such inquiry
before giving its consent.
Sub-section (1) provides that when the Government is G
satisfied that a particular land is needed for a public
purpose or for a Company. a declaration shall be made
"to that effect". Satisfaction of the Government after
consideration of the report. if any, made under Section 5-
A is undoubtedly a condition precedent to a valid H
1168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A declaration. for. there can be no valid acquisition under the
Act unless the Government is satisfied that the land to be
acquired is needed for a public purpose or for a Company.
But there is nothing in sub-section (1) which requires that
such satisfaction need be stated in the declaration. The
B only declaration as required by sub-section 1 is that the
land to be acquired is needed for a public purpose or for
a Company. Sub-section (2) makes this clear, for it clearly
provides that the declaration "shall state" where such land
is situate, "the purpose for which it is needed", its
c approximate area and the place. Where its plan, if made,
can be inspected. It is such a declaration made under sub-
section (1) and published under sub-section (2) which
becomes conclusive evidence that the particular land is
needed for a public purpose or for a Company as the case
may be. The contention therefore that it is imperative that
D
the satisfaction must be expressed in the declaration or
that otherwise the notification would not be in accord with
Section 6 is not correct."
(emphasis supplied)
E
61. The proposition laid down in the aforementioned two
judgments does not support the stance of the Chandigarh
Administration that even though there is breach of the mandate
of Section 5A read with Section 6(1 ), the Court cannot, after
F the issue of declaration under Section 6(1 ), nullify the
acquisition proceedings. As a matter of fact, the ratio of both
the judgments is that satisfaction of the appropriate Government
envisaged in Section 6(1) must be preceded by consideration
of the report prepared by the Collector after considering the
objections filed under Section 5A and hearing the objectors.
G This necessarily implies that the Government must objectively
apply its mind to the report of the Collector and the objections
filed by the landowners and then take a decision whether or not
the land is needed for the specified public purpose. A
mechanical endorsement of the report of the Collector cannot
H
SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v. 1169
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
be a substitute for the requirement of application of mind by A
the Government which must be clearly reflected in the record.
62. In addition to what we have observed on the issue of
flagrant violation of the two sections, it will be apposite to
recapitulate the language of the declarations issued under
8
Section 6(1 ), which were published on 28.2.2007. A reading
of the declarations makes it clear that the authority issuing the
same was totally unmindful of the requirement of the statute.
This could be the only reason why instead of recording
satisfaction of the appropriate Government that the land is C
needed for a public purpose, the notification uses the
expressions "appears to the Administrator" and "likely to be
needed". This only adds to the casualness with which the entire
issue of acquisition has been dealt with by the higher
functionaries of the Chandigarh Administration.
D
63. Adverting to the impugned order, we find that the High
Court has not examined the substantive grounds on which the
appellants had challenged the acquisition of their land with the
required seriousness and failed to notice that the LAO had not
at all considered several objections including those relating to E
adverse impact on the environment and ecology of the area
raised by the landowners and mechanically recommended the
acquisition of land notified under Section 4(1 ), that the reports
of the LAO were not placed before the competent authority and
that even the Advisor had not objectively considered the reports F
of the LAO in the light of the objections filed under Section
5A(1) and simply appended his signatures on the note
prepared by the Secretary (Finance). This omission on the
High Court's part has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
64. In view of the findings recorded on the main questions, G
we do not consider it necessary to deal with and decide other
questions including the one that the purpose specified in the
notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) was not a
bona fide public purpose and that in the·garb of acquiring land
H
1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.
A for IT Park etc., the Chandigarh Administration wanted to favour
the private developers.
65. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned
order is set aside and Notifications dated 26.6.2006, 2.8.2006
and 28.2.2007 issued by the Chandigarh Administration under
8
Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act are quashed. The parties are
left to bear their own costs.
B.B.B. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "land acquisition"Sign in to search