Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3177-3178 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS.26770-26771 OF 2011)

MOHAN SINGH GILL & ORS. ETC. .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC. .....RESPONDENT(S)

W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3179-3180 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS.26779-26780 OF 2011)

W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3181 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.13124 OF 2012)

A N D

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3182 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.17407 OF 2012)

J U D G M E N T

A.K. SIKRI, J.

Leave granted.

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 1 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 2

2) These appeals arise out of the common judgment dated April 29,  

2011 passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh  

whereby number of writ petitions which were filed challenging the  

acquisition of land measuring 192.75 acres vide two notifications,  

both  dated  10.08.2009,  issued  under  Section  4  of  the  Land  

Acquisition Act,  1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')  were  

dismissed.  As a consequence, validity of  the notifications has  

been  upheld,  holding  that  acquisition  for  public  purpose  for  

development of Missing Link-II from Dhandra Road to Sidhwan  

Canal via Malerkotla Road, Ludhiana as well as for development  

of  residential  urban estate  along proposed road from Dhandra  

Road to Sidhwan Canal via Malerkotla Road, Ludhiana, is just  

and proper.   

3) It is clear from the above that two notifications were issued on the  

same day i.e.  on 10.08.2009.   Vide first  notification,  land was  

acquired  for  development  of  Missing  Link-II  on  the  route  

mentioned above.  By the second notification, land was sought to  

be acquired for the development of residential urban estate along  

with the proposed road, mainly to adjust  oustees of the above  

said  road.   Land  acquired  by  the  first  notification  was  192.75  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 2 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 3

acres  whereas  by  the  second  notification,  land  measuring  59  

acres  1  kanal  12  marlas  was  acquired.   After  the  aforesaid  

notifications  under  Section  4  of  the  Act,  two  notifications  both  

dated 10.08.2009 under  Section 6 of  the Act  were issued and  

consequent thereupon, Award No.4 dated 07.08.2010 pertaining  

to  the  first  notification  and  Award  No.3  dated  07.08.2010  

pertaining to the second notification were passed.  Validity of all  

these notifications was the subject matter of the writ petitions.   

4) In  order  to  appreciate  the  present  dispute  in  its  correct  

perspective,  it  is  necessary  to  consider  some  important  

background  facts  pertaining  to  construction  of  what  has  been  

termed as  'Missing  Link-I'  –  which is  inextricably  linked  to  the  

present acquisition.  It is a matter of record that a bypass is being  

constructed to connect Ferozepur Road to Sidhwan Canal aiming  

at  decongesting  Ludhiana  City  of  the  traffic  problems.   Major  

portion of  the road had already been constructed,  which were  

shown in the site plan filed in the High Court as Annexure R/1/7.  

From point A to point D and again from point E to point F, these  

portions had already been constructed.  However, there were two  

Missing Links namely between point D to point E and point F to  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 3 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 4

point  G.   Missing Link from point  D to E has been shown as  

'Missing Link-I'.  The respondent-State had issued the notification  

dated  12.05.2003  under  Section  4  read  with  Section  17(4),  

followed by the notification dated 13.05.2003 under Section 6, to  

acquire land measuring 11 acres 3 kanal 9 marlas for construction  

of Missing Link-I.   Pursuant thereto, the land was acquired vide  

Award No.1 dated 24.08.2005. This acquisition was challenged  

but the said challenge failed as writ petitions were dismissed and  

decision of the High Court was upheld by this Court as well.

5) It is in this scenario, for providing road from point F to point G  

(Missing Link-II), the impugned notification dated 10.08.2009 was  

issued for the aforesaid public purpose.  As per the Government,  

the bypass had been planned and realignment done keeping in  

view  the  availability  of  the  land  so  that  it  may  not  affect  the  

existing  buildings  and  in  order  to  solve  the  increasing  traffic  

problems in future so as to ensure free and smooth flow of the  

traffic.   The realignment was approved by the Punjab Regional  

and Town Planning and Development Board (hereinafter referred  

to as the 'Board') in its meeting dated 06.08.2009.  That led to the  

passing of Award No.4 dated 07.08.2010.

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 4 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 5

6) Simultaneously,  second  set  of  notifications  were  issued  for  

acquisition of land for development of residential urban estate to  

adjust  oustees  of  the  above  said  road.   According  to  the  

Government, with the acquisition of the land to complete Missing  

Link-II, the residents of the said land had to be ousted.  In order to  

adjust those oustees, it became necessary to acquire the land for  

development  of  residential  urban  estate  to  rehabilitate  such  

oustees.

7) Insofar  as  first  notification  is  concerned,  it  was  challenged  on  

various grounds including the plea that  the said acquisition for  

proposed road i.e. Missing Link-II, is an inviable option and there  

is total lack of application of mind on the part of the respondent-

Government in acquiring the land in question.  It was also argued  

that  land  was  not  utilised  entirely  for  the  construction  of  the  

aforesaid proposed road i.e. Missing Link-II but a large portion of  

the acquired land was used for  other  purpose viz.  commercial  

purpose  which  is  not  the  purpose  stated  in  the  notifications.  

Number  of  other  technical  and  legal  objections  were  taken  

including the objection that  the proposed bypass road has not  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 5 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 6

been shown in the master plan and, therefore, the same could not  

be  developed  by  acquiring  the  land  without  first  making  

amendments  in  the  master  plan.   However,  none  of  these  

arguments have found favour  with the High Court.   Insofar  as  

second notification is concerned, there is not much discussion in  

the impugned judgment and the counsel for all the parties agreed  

that this Court itself should decide the issue on merits.

8) Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel who appeared in three  

appeals  out  of  four,  targeted  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court,  

insofar as it relates to the first acquisition namely acquisition of  

land  for  Missing  Link-II  is  concerned,  by  raising  following  

arguments:  

In the first place, he pleaded that the land in question was  

utilised  for  the  purposes  different  from  what  is  stated  in  the  

notification.  It was the submission that though the purpose was  

Missing Link-II for development (Dhandra Road to Sidhwan Canal  

via Malerkotla Road, Ludhiana), as a matter of record, a large  

part of the acquired land was used for a totally different purpose  

viz. commercial purpose, which according to him is impermissible  

in law.  He referred to the replies filed by the official respondents  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 6 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 7

wherein the factum of land being used for commercial purpose  

had been admitted.  He pointed out that the width of Missing Link-

II had been kept at 450 feet whereas the proposed road is only  

200 feet and on both the sides two commercial pockets of 100  

feet and 150 feet respectively are going to be developed.  He also  

pointed out that objections were submitted under Section 5-A of  

the Act which related to the stated public purpose only.  As the  

use of part of the land for the commercial purpose was not stated  

in the notification and the appellants were kept in dark, they could  

not file objections to the same and were thereby deprived of their  

legitimate  right  to  file  effective  objections.   He  pleaded that  it  

amounted to violation of the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act  

by depriving the appellants from giving opportunity to submit their  

objections to the aforesaid use of land which was not stated in the  

impugned notifications.  He further argued in this behalf that the  

utilisation of land for purpose other than the purpose stated not  

only defeats the right available under Section 5A of the Act but  

the  consequence  thereof  would  be  to  acquire  the  land  under  

Section 17 of the Act viz. in exercise of emergent powers and that  

could not be done without following the procedure contained in  

that section.  Related submission of Mr. Nidhesh Gupta was that  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 7 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 8

utilising the major chunk of land for developing commercial area  

clearly showed that the land of the appellants was acquired to  

finance the project of constructing the road.  According to him,  

such an action is per se arbitrary as land of the appellants could  

not  be acquired for  such a purpose thereby depriving them of  

their  right  to  livelihood.   He  took  this  argument  on  a  higher  

pedestal by submitting that such an act amounted to violation of  

Article 21 of the Constitution.

9) Another submission of Mr. Nidesh Gupta was that the proposed  

road (Missing Link-II) and the changes made therein are contrary  

to the master plan inasmuch as master plan does not show such  

a road and, therefore, there could not be any construction of any  

road without there being a provision made in the master plan.  He  

referred to Section 77 of Punjab Regional and Town Planning and  

Development  Act,  1995  which  prescribes  the  mandatory  

procedure that has to be followed without making the changes in  

the master plan and submitted that the construction of the road  

amounted to violation of this provision as well.

10) Ms.  S. Janani, who appeared for the other appellant led by Mr.  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 8 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 9

M.L.  Saggar,  senior  advocate,  also  highlighted  the  aforesaid  

contentions  argued  by  Mr.  Nidhesh  Gupta  and  elaborated  the  

same with facts and figures from the record.  In addition, another  

thrust  of  their  submission was that  alignment  of  the road was  

changed thereby creating Missing Link-II and this was not only  

arbitrary but without application of mind as well.

11) Mr. Rakesh Khanna, learned Additional Solictor General, argued  

the  matter  on  behalf  of  respondent  No.3,  namely  Greater  

Ludhiana Area Development Authority (GDADA), strongly refuting  

the aforesaid submissions of the appellants.  He referred to the  

various meetings that had taken place before the final decision  

was taken in respect of the realignment of the road.  He was at  

pains to submit that it was a  bona fide policy decision taken to  

complete  the  Missing  Link-II  inasmuch  as  other  route  for  

completing this road would have resulted in uprooting the settled  

habitation  in  much  more  substantial  measure.   In  order  to  

demonstrate it, learned senior counsel had drawn our attention to  

various maps as well.  He also referred to the judgment of the  

High Court  where this material  has been noted and discussed  

elaborately, while upholding the acquisition.

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 9 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 10

12) It is clear from the aforesaid that in so far as the first notification is  

concerned,  where  the  land  is  acquired  for  the  purpose  of  

constructing Missing Link-II, it has two facets.  First relates to the  

construction of the road itself, popularly known as Missing Link-II.  

Second facet thereof is the permissibility of the utilisation of the  

part of the land for commercial purpose which was not so stated  

in the impugned notifications.

13) Insofar as first aspect is concerned, we find from the impugned  

judgment  that  the  High  Court  has  dealt  with  this  aspect  very  

lucidly  with  precision.   As  pointed  out  above,  attempt  of  the  

counsel was to demonstrate that there already exist enough links  

and it was not necessary to propose the road.  It was also argued  

that the realignment was not a wise decision.

14) Attempt was also made to point out that this purpose for which  

land  was  acquired  had  become  redundant  in  the  changed  

circumstances.  However, after going into the matter in depth and  

examining the records, we are satisfied that the High Court has  

correctly concluded that it is for the authorities, who are engaged  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 10 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 11

in the development and planning of a city, to ascertain the need to  

acquire the land for creating infrastructure, such as roads etc.  It  

is a matter of record that their exists a road from point A to point D  

and again from point E to point F.  There are two Missing Links  

namely Missing Link-I from point D to point E and Missing Link-II  

from point F to point G.  The land which was acquired for Missing  

Link-I,  almost  in  similar  circumstances,  was  subject  matter  of  

litigation but the attempts of the landholders failed right upto this  

Court as the challenge to the said notification was thwarted.

15) We  also  find  that  there  have  been  due  deliberations  by  the  

competent authorities deciding upon the realignment of the road  

leading  to  proposed  Missing  Link-II.   We  do  not  find  any  

arbitrariness in the exercise done at the highest level inasmuch  

as the Chief Minister himself approved the revised plans.  It is not  

the  function  of  this  Court  to  compare  the  Missing  Link-II  with  

alternate route suggested by the appellants and to come to the  

conclusion which out of the two would be more appropriate.    

16) Insofar as argument predicated on the master plan is concerned,  

the High Court  has brushed aside this very argument with the  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 11 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 12

following discussion:

“Further the argument of the learned counsel  for  the  appellants  that  the  proposed  Bye  Pass road has not been shown in the Master  Plan  and  therefore,  the  same  cannot  be  developed  by  acquiring  the  land  is  without  any force.  As shown by the learned counsel  for  the  respondents  the  realignment  of  the  Missing Link-II which falls in Zonal Plan-I has  been  notified  as  per  the  provisions  of  the  Punjab  Act  vide  notification  No.1379  dated  24.02.2011  Annexure  R-1/8  and  the  same  has been shown in the Zonal Plan of zone  No.1 Annexure R-1/9.  The argument of the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  that  the  alleged realignment of the road has not been  done  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Section  76/77  of  the  Punjab  Act,  is  also  without any merit.  From the facts established  on record, it is clear that the changes have  been necessitated which have arisen out of  implementation of the proposals as made in  the  master  plan  and  such  realignment  has  been  made  in  public  interest  and  after  notification of the same which is clear from  Annexure R-1/8.  Interpretation as given by  learned counsel for the appellants of Section  76  of  Punjab  Act  cannot  be  accepted.  Section 76 of Punjab Act reads as follows:

“Amendment of Master Plan- (1) At any time  after the date on which the Master Plan for  an area comes into operation,  and at  least  once after  every  ten years,  after  that  date,  the Designated Planning Agency shall  after  carrying out  such fresh surveys as may be  considered necessary or as directed by the  [State  Government]  prepare  and  submit  to  the [State Government], a Master Plan after  making  alterations  or  additions  as  it  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 12 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 13

considers necessary.

(2)   The provisions of  [sections 70 and 75]  shall  mutatis  mutandis  as  far  as  may  be  possible, apply to the Master Plan submitted  under sub-section (1).”

A perusal of Section 76(1) of Punjab Act clearly indicates  

that the Master Plan can be amended at any time after the date  

on which the Master Plan for an area comes into operation and  

not  after  10  years  from  such  date  as  argued  by  the  learned  

counsel for the appellants.  Even otherwise, the High Court is of  

the view that, in the present case, Section 76 of Punjab Act has  

no applicability and in fact the realignment has been done under  

Section 77 of the Punjab Act and, thus, there is no violation of the  

provisions of the Punjab Act.

17) We are in agreement with the aforesaid findings arrived at by the  

High Court.   We would like to record here that  in the affidavit  

dated  May  06,  2014  filed  by  the  respondent-authorities,  it  is  

specifically  averred  that  the  alignment  of  the  Missing  Link-II  

between the Railway line and Sidhwan Canal/crossing Malerkotla  

Road has never been changed.  Just below the point where the  

Missing Link-II crosses the Malerkotla Road is an angular curve  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 13 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 14

near village Gil (in Hadbast 263).  This is explained by pointing  

out that in the map filed the 10 km long road is divided into 6  

segments: A-B already constructed, B-C already constructed, C-D  

already constructed.  D-E is Missing Link-I which has since been  

constructed in the year 2012-13.  E-F already constructed and F-

G is  the Missing Link-II.   Missing Link-II  is  further divided into  

points F and F1 i.e. the road between Dhandra Road to Railway  

Crossing,  F-1 to F-2 the Missing Link-II  road between existing  

Railway Crossing and Malerkotla Road and F2 to G i.e. between  

Malerkotla Road and Sidhwan Canal.  Point G is just near Lohara  

village.  It is also pointed out that in the blown-up portion of the  

Traffic & Transportation plan (which is not revenue based) of the  

Master  Plan  again  this  road  from Firozepur  Road till  Sidhwan  

Canal is marked as Points A, B, C, D, E, F, F1, F2 and G.  The  

road crosses the Railway Line at point F1, the existing railway  

crossing.  The Missing Link-II road crosses Malerkotla Road at  

point F2 just above point H, the curved road of Gill Village at point  

H and ends at Point G, just near Village Lohara.  The deponent  

has also filed  Aks Shajra map, zonal plan of the area, and plan  

showing  alignment  of  Missing  Link-II.   From  these  plans,  an  

attempt is made to demonstrate that at no point of time there is  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 14 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 15

any  variation  in  the  alignment  of  Missing  Link-II  between  the  

portions  F1 to  G,  be  it  Master  Plan,  Revenue Plans or  Zonal  

Development  Plan.   The  only  change  in  alignment  has  been  

made  between  the  portion  F  and  F1  which  was  necessitated  

during the implementation of the Master Plan to avoid the area in  

which there was heavy construction existing.  The realigned road  

between Point F and F1 is passing through open areas avoiding  

the constructed areas.

18) We are, thus, satisfied on the basis of the records that the plea of  

the appellants that the alignment of the road between Points F  

and G from Traffic & Transportation Plan of the Master Plan has  

been shifted by about 3 – 4.5 kms on the Northern side is not  

correct.

19) As a consequence, insofar as need of land for the construction of  

Missing Link-II  is concerned, the same stands duly established  

and for  acquisition  of  this  chunk of  land,  there cannot  be any  

exception.

20) This  leads us to the second facet of this notification.  As noted  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 15 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 16

above, the width of road for Missing Link-II is 200 feet.  However,  

the land acquired is 450 feet.  Land beyond 200 feet on either  

side is sought to be utilised by constructing shops on both sides  

of the road.  We have already recorded the submissions of the  

appellants  on  the  basis  of  which  this  part  of  acquisition  is  

questioned.  To recapitulate the same briefly, it was argued :

(a) such  a  purpose  is  not  stated  in  the  notification  which  

mentions  the  acquisition  only  for  the  purpose  of  

construction  of  Missing  Link-II.   Under  the  garb  of  this  

notification, the respondents cannot utilise the part  of the  

land for commercial purpose.   

(b)   In  the  absence  of  any  such  purpose  mentioned  in  the  

notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, the appellants  

were deprived of purposeful and effective opportunity to file  

objections under Section 5-A of the Act.

(c)  The hidden purpose of utilising the major chunk of land for  

developing  commercial  area  shows  that  the  land  of  the  

appellants  was  acquired  to  finance  the  project  of  

constructing  the  road.  According  to  the  appellants,  it  is  

clearly impermissible.  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 16 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 17

21) Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the judgment  

of  this  Court  in  Tulsi  Co-operative  Housing  Society,   

Hyderabad etc.  v.  State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc.1,  

wherein this Court while upholding the acquisition, had directed  

that lands had to be utilised for the purposes for which they were  

acquired.  For the same proposition, judgment in  Narpat Singh  

etc. v. Jaipur Development Authority and Another2 was relied  

upon.

22) The  respondents  have  attempted  to  meet  this  challenge  by  

explaining that in the notifications it was categorically stated that  

plans  of  the  land  may be  inspected  in  the  office  of  the  Land  

Acquisition Collector (LAC). The plans which were displayed in  

the office of the LAC and filed on record, show that this part of the  

land to be utilised for the commercial purpose.  The land owners  

were, therefore, fully made aware of the use of the land.  They  

were given an opportunity to file their objections under Section 5-

A of  the  Act.   However,  no  objection  was  submitted  by  the  

1

(2000) 1 SCC 533 2 (2002) 4 SCC 666

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 17 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 18

affected persons alleging that development of commercial area  

along side of Missing Link-II was improper or should not be done.  

On that basis, it is argued, relying on the decision of this Court in  

the case of  Delhi Administration  v.  Gurdip Singh Uban and  

Others3, that those claimants who had not filed objections to the  

Section 4 notification cannot now be permitted to contend before  

Court that the Section 5-A inquiry is vitiated.

23) We have pondered over this issue in depth with reference to the  

record and find force in the submissions of the learned counsel  

for the appellants.  It is clear from the facts noted above that in  

the notification dated 10.08.2009 issued under Section 4 of the  

Act,  public  purpose  which  is  stated  is  “Missing  Link-II  for  

development  (from  Dhandra  Road  to  Sidhwan  Canal  via  

Malerkotla  Road),  Ludhiana....”.   Thus,  the  land  owners  were  

informed  that  the  land  is  sought  to  be  acquired  for  the  

construction  of  Missing  Link-II.   From  the  reading  of  this  

notification,  it  is  difficult  to visualize by a common person with  

reasonable  prudence  that  the  part  of  land  is  sought  to  be  

exploited for commercial development as well.  Obviously, when  

the  purpose  stated  is  construction  of  Missing  Link-II,  the  3 (2000) 7 SCC 296

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 18 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 19

objections would be filed by land owners having focus on the said  

stated  purpose  in  mind.   Had the  land  owners  been told  that  

major  part  of  the  land  is  going  to  be  utilised  for  commercial  

purpose  as  well,  they  would  have  filed  their  objections  to  the  

proposed move.  With no specific stipulation in this behalf in the  

notification under Section 4 of the Act, the persons whose land  

was  sought  to  be  acquired  were  deprived  of  an  effective  

opportunity to file the objections under Section 5-A of the Act.  It   

hardly  needs  to  be  mentioned  that  filing  of  objections  under  

Section  5-A of  the  Act  is,  in  substance,  the  only  procedural  

safeguard/right given to the land owners.  It is for this reason that  

violation of Section 5-A of the Act has been treated as fatal by this  

Court in number of cases as it becomes violative of principles of  

natural justice.  The importance of objections under Section 5-A  

of the Act has been highlighted in  Usha Stud and Agricultural   

Farms Pvt. Ltd. and others v. State of Haryana and others4 as  

under:

“23.   Section  5-A,  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 in the locality to  

4 (2013) 4 SCC 210

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 19 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 20

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  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.

24.   Upon receipt  of  the Collector's  report,  the  appropriate  Government  is  required  to  take  action under Section 6(1) which lays down that if  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 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  under Section 4(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  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).

25.  In terms of Section 6(2), every declaration  made  under  Section  6(1)  is  required  to  be  published in the Official Gazette and in two daily  newspapers  having circulation  in  the locality  in  which  the  land  proposed  to  be  acquired  is  situated.  of  these,  at  least  one must  be in  the  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 20 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 21

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  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.

26.  Section 6(3) lays down that the declaration  made  under  Section  6(1)  shall  be  conclusive  evidence of  the  fact  that  land  is  needed for  a  public purpose.

27.   After  publication  of  the  declaration  under  Section  6(1),  the  Collector  is  required  to  take  order  from  the  State  Government  for  the  acquisition of land and cause it to be measured  and planned (Sections 7 and 8). The next stage  is the 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 contained  in Section 23.

28.  In Munshi Singh v. Union of India, (1973) 2  SCC 337, this Court emphasised the importance  of Section 5-A in the following words:

“7.   ...Sub-section  (2)  of  Section  5-A  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 Government on the objections  is  then  final.  The  declaration  under  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 21 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 22

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  proposed  acquisition  and  for  the  disposal  of  their  objections. It is only in cases of urgency  that special powers have been conferred  on  the  appropriate  Government  to  dispense with the provisions of Section 5- A.”   

29.  In State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2  SCC 471, the Court observed as under:

“16.  ...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 is both reasonable and pre- emptive of arbitrariness, and denial of this  administrative  fairness  is  constitutional  anathema except for good reasons. Save  in real urgency where public interest does  not brook even the minimum time needed  to  give  a  hearing  land  acquisition  authorities  should  not,  having  regard  to  Articles  14  (and  19),  burke  an  enquiry  under  Section  17  of  the  Act.  Here  a  slumbering  process,  pending  for  years  and  suddenly  exciting  itself  into  immediate  forcible  taking,  makes  a  travesty of emergency power.”

30.  In Shyam Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar,  (1993)  4  SCC  255,  this  Court  reiterated  that  compliance  of  Section  5-A  is  mandatory  and  observed:

“10.   ...The  decision  of  the  Collector  is  supposedly  final  unless  the  appropriate  Government chooses to interfere therein  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 22 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 23

and cause affectation, suo motu or on the  application  of  any  person  interested  in  the  land.  These  requirements  obviously  lead  to  the  positive  conclusion  that  the  proceeding  before  the  Collector  is  a  blend  of  public  and  individual  enquiry.  The  person  interested,  or  known  to  be  interested,  in  the  land  is  to  be  served  personally  of  the notification,  giving him  the  opportunity  of  objecting  to  the  acquisition  and  awakening  him  to  such  right. That the objection is to be in writing,  is  indicative of  the fact  that  the enquiry  into the objection is to focus his individual  cause as well as public cause. That at the  time of the enquiry, for which prior notice  shall  be  essential,  the  objector  has  the  right  to  appear  in  person  or  through  pleader and substantiate his objection by  evidence and argument.”

31.  In Raghbir Singh Sehrawat's case, this Court  referred  to  the  judgments  in  Munshi  Singh  v.  Union  of  India,  (1973)  2  SCC  337,  State  of  Punjab  v.  Gurdial  Singh,  (1980)  2  SCC  471,  Shyam Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1993) 4  SCC 255, Union of India v. Mukesh Hans, (2004)  8 SCC 14, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.  v.  Darius  Shapur  Chenai,  (2005)  7  SCC  627,  Radhy Shyam v. State of U.P., (2011) 5 SCC 553  and observed:

“39.   In  this  context,  it  is  necessary  to  remember that the rules of natural justice  have  been  ingrained  in  the  scheme  of  Section  5-A with  a  view to  ensure that  before any person is deprived of his land  by  way  of  compulsory  acquisition,  he  must  get  an  opportunity  to  oppose  the  decision of the State Government and/or  its  agencies/instrumentalities  to  acquire  the  particular  parcel  of  land.  At  the  hearing, the objector can make an effort  to  convince  the  Land  Acquisition  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 23 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 24

Collector  to  make  recommendation  against  the  acquisition  of  his  land.  He  can also point out that the land proposed  to  be  acquired  is  not  suitable  for  the  purpose  specified  in  the  notification  issued under Section 4(1). Not only this,  he  can produce evidence  to  show that  another piece of land is available and the  same can be utilised for execution of the  particular project or scheme.  

40.   Though  it  is  neither  possible  nor  desirable to make a list  of the grounds  on  which  the  landowner  can  persuade  the Collector to make recommendations  against the proposed acquisition of land,  but what is important is that the Collector  should give a fair opportunity of hearing  to the objector and objectively consider  his plea against the acquisition of land.  Only  thereafter,  he  should  make  recommendations  supported  by  brief  reasons as to why the particular piece of  land  should  or  should  not  be  acquired  and whether or not the plea put forward  by  the  objector  merits  acceptance.  In  other words, the recommendations made  by  the  Collector  must  reflect  objective  application of mind to the objections filed  by the landowners and other interested  persons.”

32.  In Kamal Trading (P) Ltd. v. State of West  Bengal (supra), this Court again considered the  scope of Section 5-A and observed:

“13.  Section 5-A(1) of the LA Act gives a  right  to  any  person  interested  in  any  land  which  has  been  notified  under  Section 4(1) as being needed or likely to  be needed for a public purpose to raise  objections to the acquisition of the said  land.  Sub-section  (2)  of  Section  5-A  requires  the  Collector  to  give  the  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 24 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 25

objector an opportunity of being heard in  person or by any person authorised by  him  in  this  behalf.  After  hearing  the  objections, the Collector can, if he thinks  it  necessary,  make  further  inquiry.  Thereafter, he has to make a report to  the appropriate  Government  containing  his recommendations on the objections  together  with  the  record  of  the  proceedings held by him for the decision  of the appropriate Government and the  decision of the appropriate Government  on the objections shall be final.

14.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  proceedings under the LA Act are based  on the principle of eminent domain and  Section  5-A  is  the  only  protection  available to a person whose lands are  sought  to  be  acquired.  It  is  a  minimal  safeguard  afforded  to  him  by  law  to  protect himself from arbitrary acquisition  by  pointing  out  to  the  authority  concerned, inter alia, that the important  ingredient,  namely,  "public  purpose"  is  absent  in  the  proposed  acquisition  or  the acquisition is mala fide. The LA Act  being  an  expropriatory  legislation,  its  provisions  will  have  to  be  strictly  construed.

15. Hearing contemplated under Section  5-A(2)  is  necessary  to  enable  the  Collector  to  deal  effectively  with  the  objections  raised against  the proposed  acquisition  and  make  a  report.  The  report of the Collector referred to in this  provision  is  not  an  empty  formality  because  it  is  required  to  be  placed  before  the  appropriate  Government  together  with  the  Collector's  recommendations and the record of the  case. It is only upon receipt of the said  report  that the Government can take a  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 25 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 26

final  decision  on  the  objections.  It  is  pertinent to note that declaration under  Section 6 has to be made only after the  appropriate Government  is  satisfied on  the  consideration  of  the  report,  if  any,  made by the Collector under Section 5- A(2). As said by this Court in Hindustan  Petroleum  Corporation  Ltd.,  the  appropriate  Government  while  issuing  declaration  under  Section  6  of  the  LA  Act is required to apply its mind not only  to  the objections filed by the owner of  the  land  in  question,  but  also  to  the  report  which  is  submitted  by  the  Collector  upon  making  such  further  inquiry thereon as he thinks necessary  and also the recommendations made by  him in that behalf.

16.  Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the  LA  Act  makes  a  declaration  under  Section 6 conclusive evidence that  the  land  is  needed  for  a  public  purpose.  Formation of opinion by the appropriate  Government  as  regards  the  public  purpose  must  be  preceded  by  application  of  mind  as  regards  consideration  of  relevant  factors  and  rejection  of  irrelevant  ones.  It  is,  therefore, that the hearing contemplated  under Section 5-A and the report made  by the Land Acquisition Officer and his  recommendations  assume  importance.  It is implicit in this provision that before  making  declaration  under  Section  6  of  the LA Act, the State Government must  have the benefit  of  a report  containing  recommendations  of  the  Collector  submitted under Section 5-A (2) of  the  LA  Act.  The  recommendations  must  indicate objective application of mind.”

33.  The ratio of the aforesaid judgments is that  Section  5-A(2),  which  represents  statutory  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 26 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 27

embodiment of the rule of audi alteram partem,  gives an opportunity to the objector to make an  endeavour to convince the Collector that his land  is not required for the public purpose specified in  the notification issued under Section 4(1) or that  there are other  valid  reasons for  not  acquiring  the same. That section also makes it obligatory  for  the  Collector  to  submit  report(s)  to  the  appropriate  Government  containing  his  recommendations  on  the  objections,  together  with the record of the proceedings held by him  so  that  the  Government  may  take  appropriate  decision on the objections. Section 6(1) provides  that  if  the appropriate Government  is  satisfied,  after considering the report, if any, made by the  Collector under Section 5-A that particular land is  needed for the specified public purpose then a  declaration  should  be  made.  This  necessarily  implies that the State Government is required to  apply mind to the report of the Collector and take  final  decision  on  the  objections  filed  by  the  landowners and other interested persons. Then  and then only, a declaration can be made under  Section 6(1).

24) The  aforesaid  dicta  was  reiterated  recently  in  Women's  

Education Trust and another v.  State of Haryana and others5  

emphasising the importance of Section 5-A in the following words:

“5.  The principles which can be culled out from  the above-noted judgments are as under:

5.1.   The  rule  of  audi  alteram  partem  engrained in  the  scheme of  Section 5-A of  the  Act  ensures  that  before  depriving  any  person of his land by compulsory acquisition,  an effective opportunity must be given to him  to  contest  the  decision  taken  by  the  State  Government /competent authority to acquire  the particular parcel of land.

5 (2013) 8 SCC 99

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 27 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 28

5.2.  Any person interested in the land, which  has been notified under Section 4(1) of  the  Act, can file objections under Section 5A(1)  and show that  the purpose specified in the  notification is really not a public purpose or  that in the guise of acquiring the land for a  public  purpose the appropriate  Government  wants to confer benefit upon private persons  or  that  the  decision  of  the  appropriate  Government is arbitrary or is vitiated due to  mala fides.

5.3.  In response to the notice issued by the  Land  Acquisition  Collector  under  Section  5A(2) of  the Act,  the objector can make all  possible  endeavours  to  convince  the  Land  Acquisition  Collector  that  the  acquisition  is  not  for  a  public  purpose  specified  in  the  notification  issued  under  Section  4(1);  that  his  land  is  not  suitable  for  the  particular  purpose; that other more suitable parcels of  land are available, which can be utilized for  execution of the particular project or scheme.

5.4.   The Land Acquisition Collector is duty  bound to objectively consider the arguments  advanced  by  the  objector  and  make  recommendations,  duly  supported  by  brief  reasons,  as  to  why  the  particular  piece  of  land should  or  should  not  be acquired and  whether the plea put forward by the objector  merits  acceptance.  In  other  words,  the  recommendations  made  by  the  Land  Acquisition Collector should reflect objective  application  of  mind  to  the  entire  record  including the objections filed by the interested  persons.

5.5.  The  Land  Acquisition  Collector  is  required  to  submit  his  report  and  the  recommendations  to  the  State  Government  along  with  the  record  of  proceedings  to  enable  the  latter  to  take  final  call  on  the  desirability, propriety and justification for the  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 28 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 29

acquisition of the particular parcel(s) of land.

5.6  The declaration under Section 6(1) of the  Act  can  be  issued  only  if  the  appropriate  Government,  on  an  objective  application  of  mind to the objections filed by the interested  persons  including  the  landowners  and  the  report  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Collector,  is  satisfied  that  the  land  is  needed  for  the  particular purpose specified in the notification  issued under Section 4(1) of the Act.

6.   It  is  unfortunate  that  despite  repeated  judicial  pronouncements,  the  executive  authorities  entrusted  with  the  task  of  acquiring private land for any specified public  purposes have time and again exhibited total  lack  of  seriousness  in  the  performance  of  their duties under the statute. Often they do  not comply with the mandate of Section 5A of  the Act, which is sine qua non for making a  valid  declaration  under  Section  6(1)  of  the  Act.  This batch of  appeals is illustrative of  the  malady  that  has  afflicted  the  State  authorities  who are keen to  acquire  private  lands in the name of planned development of  various  urban  areas,  but  do  not  bother  to  comply with the relevant statutory provisions  and the rules of natural justice.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

25) We, thus, are of the opinion that appellants are deprived of proper  

and  reasonable  opportunity  of  persuading  the  authorities  

concerned to spare that part of the land which is not required for  

construction  of  Missing  Link-II  but  is  intended  to  be  used  for  

commercial purpose.  We are not influenced by the arguments of  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 29 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 30

the  respondents  that  in  the  drawings  which  were  kept  for  

inspection,  this  part  of  land  is  shown  for  commercial  

development.   First  of  all,  it  is  disputed by the appellants and  

nothing is produced on record by the respondents to substantiate  

this plea.  In any case, we are of the view that such a drawing by  

itself would not meet the mandatory requirement of the Act in the  

absence of  specific  stipulation  in  this  behalf  in  the  notification  

itself.

26) In the aforesaid backdrop, we find strength in the submission of  

the  appellants  that  the  hidden  purpose  for  acquiring  “surplus”  

land,  i.e.  the land apart  from what  is  required for  constructing  

Missing Link-II, was to develop it as commercial area (which is  

not stated in the acquisition notification) so that the finances could  

be arranged for construction of road or for some other purpose.  

This cannot be treated as public purpose.  If the land was to be  

utilised for commercial purpose, there has to be a proper planning  

into it and it needs to be demonstrated that utilisation of the land  

serves some public purpose.  We do not find it to be so in the  

present case.

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 30 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 31

27) Mr.  Khanna  had  cited  certain  judgments  in  support  of  his  

submission that  even if  the land is  acquired for  one particular  

purpose, the authorities are empowered to utilise the same for  

another  public  purpose.   However,  it  is  permissible  in  those  

circumstances where the original purpose for which the land was  

acquired had to be changed for some valid reasons.  Even that is  

not the case herein.  From the very beginning, the authorities had  

in mind to use the extra chunk of land for commercial purpose but  

the same was not even stated in the notifications issued under  

Sections 4 or 6 of the Act.  It is stated at the cost of the repetition  

that insofar as notifications are concerned, purpose mentioned is  

construction  of  Missing  Link-II,  and  in  this  scenario,  the  

authorities cannot  acquire more land than what  is  required for  

construction of Missing Link-II.    The notifications to the extent  

they  acquire  land  over  and  above  which  is  needed  for  

construction of Missing Link-II are, thus, held to be bad in law and  

set aside.

28) This brings us to the validity of second notification.  As already  

mentioned above, 55.41 acres of  land has been acquired vide  

notification No.3 dated 07.08.2010 and the public purpose stated  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 31 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 32

is  “Development  of  Urban Estate,  mainly  to  adjust  oustees  of  

Missing Link-II (Dhandra Road to Sidhwan Canal via Malerkotla  

Road, Ludhiana)”.  The main plank of attack of the appellants to  

this  notification  is  that  land  of  the  appellants  could  not  be  

acquired  to  rehabilitate  other  persons,  and  in  the  process  

rendering the appellants homeless and landless.  Such an action  

was arbitrary and illegal  which also amounted to depriving the  

appellants  of  their  livelihood.   It  was  also  argued  that  in  the  

process,  the  changes  which  made  were  much  more  serious  

violating the master plan.  It was also argued that the aforesaid  

stated purpose is totally vague, since it only says that the same is  

for the development of a residential urban estate.  It was argued  

that  the  public  purpose  of  “residential”  has  been  held  by  this  

Court to be vague in Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Mohd.  

Shafi6:

14. Apart  from  the  defect  in  the  impugned  notif  ication, as noticed above, we find that even    the "public purpose" which has been mentioned  in  the  schedule  to  the  notification  as  "residential"   is  hopelessly  vague and conveys    no  idea  about  the  purpose  of  acquisition  rendering  the  notification  as  invalid  in  law.  There  is  no  indication  as  to  what  type  of  residential accommodation was proposed or for  whom or  any  other  details.  The State  cannot  

6 (1992) 2 SCC 168

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 32 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 33

acquire the land of a citizen for building some  residence  for  another,  unless  the  same  is  in  'public interest" or for the benefit of the "public"  or  an  identifiable  section  thereof.  In  the  absence of the details about the alleged "public  purpose" for which the land was sought to be  acquired, no-one could comprehend as to why  the land was being acquired and therefore was  prevented from taking any further steps in the  matter.

[Emphasis Supplied] 29) It was also submitted that the notification acquiring land for the  

Missing Link road is  for  an area of  approx.  74.52 acres.   Yet,  

more than 55.41 acres of land has been acquired for adjusting  

the oustees of the said road.  Thus, the acquisition is for a far  

greater area than what was required even as per the stated public  

purpose inasmuch as 55.41 acres of land was sought to be given  

to those from whom 74.52 acres of land was taken.

30) Mr. Gupta concluded his arguments with the submission that such  

an acquisition was not at all necessary, apart from being illegal,  

unfair, unjust and against the principles of natural justice as the  

appellants  are  being  ousted  from  their  land  in  order  to  

accommodate,  adjust  and  rehabilitate  others  who are  similarly  

situated as the appellants.   In other  words,  the appellants are  

being rendered oustees in order to accommodate other oustees.  

Such a patently unjust and unfair action cannot, by any stretch of  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 33 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 34

imagination, be termed as 'public purpose' as grave harm, loss  

and injustice is being caused to the appellants for no sustainable  

reason.   He  also  emphasised  that  the  land  from  which  the  

appellants  are  being  ousted,  in  order  to  accommodate  other  

oustees, is the sole source of livelihood for the appellants.  Part of  

the acquired land is agricultural, part of it is inhabited and part of  

it  has  functioning  industries.   As  such,  there  is  no  rationale  

whatsoever  in  uprooting  well  established  livelihoods  merely  to  

accommodate  others.   The  respondents  action  evidences  

absolutely no application of mind as there is vacant agricultural  

land nearby where the oustees could have been adjusted.  It is  

argued that the real reason behind present acquisition is that in  

actual  fact  the  respondent-government  intends  to  use  the  

acquired land for profit-making purposes.  It is submitted that the  

respondents are planning to use the major part of the land under  

acquisition for commercial purposes.   

31) The  aforesaid  arguments  of  the  appellants  was  sought  to  be  

negated  by  Mr.  Rakesh  Khanna  with  the  submission  that  the  

specific stand was taken by the respondents that the eligible land  

owners / structure holders of Missing Link-II road as well as urban  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 34 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 35

estate both will be considered for allotment of plot/house as per  

oustee policy of  the State Government.   It  was submitted that  

there  are  949  land  owners  involved  in  this  acquired  land  for  

Missing Link-II and urban estate.  Firstly, it is only 48 of them who  

are before this Court.  Therefore, 901 of them have no objection  

to the acquisition.  Secondly, even out of the 48 owners, only 33  

appellants were parties before the High Court and 15 have filed  

SLP for the first time being SLP No. 14124 of 2012.  Two of them  

being appellants in SLP No. 15365 of 2012, have since withdrawn  

the SLP.

32) After considering the submissions of counsel for the parties on  

either side and on going through the records, we find force and  

merit in the case set up by the respondents.  The defence put up  

by the respondent authorities, as noted above in the submissions  

of  Mr.  Rakesh  Khanna,  appears  to  be  attractive  wherein  it  is  

stated that the purpose of acquisition of this land is not only to  

accommodate the oustees of the land owners whose land was  

acquired for construction of Missing Link-I, the acquired land shall  

be used to provide shelter to the appellants and others who will  

be divested of their land.  In this behalf, it is stated that all 949  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 35 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 36

land  owners  will  be  entitled  for  allotment  of  plots  as  per  the  

oustees policy.

33) It is also to be borne in mind that out of 949 land owners, whose  

land is sought to be acquired by the instant impugned notification,  

majority  of  them,  numbering  901  persons,  have  raised  no  

objection to the acquisition and even accepted the compensation.  

Only 48 affected persons challenged the notification before the  

High Court.  After the High Court dismissed the challenge vide  

impugned judgment,  out  of  these 48 only  15 had preferred to  

come to this Court.  We have also noted that as per the oustees  

policy of rehabilitation, all persons who have built up structures  

over the land, will be entitled for allotment of plot.  There were  

128 structures  on the  Missing Link-II  and  36 structures  in  the  

urban estates.  Therefore, 164 structure holders will be entitled  

for allotment of plots.  Besides this, all 949 land owners will be  

entitled for allotment of plots as per the oustees policy.  As per the  

plan for the area which is placed by the appellants at the time of  

hearing, there are in total 452 residential plots only in the urban  

estates which will be, by and large, sufficient for rehabilitation of  

the eligible allottees.  It was also brought to our notice that the  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 36 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 37

Government is providing free registration/zero stamp duty if the  

land owners purchase land within Punjab, equal to the amount of  

compensation  received,  within  two  years  from  the  date  of  

receiving  of  compensation.   Several  land  owners,  who  have  

received compensation, had already availed this benefit.  For all  

these  reasons,  we  would  not  like  to  go  into  the  validity  of  

challenge made to the second notification.

34) At the same time, it is necessary to reflect upon some pertinent  

aspects of the case which were highlighted by the appellants.  An  

attempt was made by the appellants to show that there is vacant  

agricultural land nearby which is more suitable for the purpose for  

which appellants land is sought to be acquired.  On this basis, a  

suggestion  was  mooted  that  the  Government  should  consider  

acquiring the said land nearby as there is vacant agricultural or  

barren  land  nearby.   It  was  also  argued  that  the  notification  

acquiring land for the Missing Link road is for an area of approx.  

74.52  acres.   Yet,  more  than  55.41  acres  of  land  has  been  

acquired for adjusting the oustees of the said road.  Thus, the  

acquisition is for a far greater area than what was required even  

as per the stated public purpose inasmuch as 55.41 acres of land  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 37 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 38

are sought to be given to those from whom 74.52 acres of land  

was taken.  However,  it  is  not  for this Court to consider as to  

which particular piece of land is more suited for acquisition by the  

authorities.   Likewise,  though,  prima  facie,  it  appears  that  

acquisition  of  55.41  acres  of  land  to  rehabilitate  the  oustees  

whose land acquired measuring 74.52 acres is quite substantial,  

it is not for this Court to decide as to what should be the extent of  

land that  needs to  be acquired for  this  purpose.   It  is  for  the  

Government to look into these aspects.  For this purpose, we give  

liberty to the appellants to make a suitable representation to the  

respondents in this behalf within a period of 30 days from today.  

If  such  a  representation  is  preferred,  the  same  shall  be  

considered in accordance with law and decision thereupon shall  

be taken within 2 months from said representation.  However, this  

liberty of  making representation is going only to the appellants  

herein,  which  benefit  shall  not  enure  to  those  who  have  not  

approached this  Court.   We also  expect  that  the  Government  

shall  take  a  pragmatic  view  and  would  not  consider  the  

representation  with  closed  mind.   While  deciding  the  

representation,  the  authorities  will  particularly  consider  the  

following aspects:

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 38 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 39

(a) Whether the land of the appellants herein, keeping in view  

the total area involved, be released as not required if  the  

remaining land is sufficient  for  the purpose for  which the  

said land is acquired?

(b) Even if some more land is needed for the stated purpose,  

whether  it  would  be  possible  to  release  the  land  of  the  

appellants  and acquire  vacant  agricultural  or  barren land  

nearby which may be more suitable?

(c) It may also be kept in mind that the land of the appellants is  

not  only  Abadi land,  the appellants have their  residential  

houses or industrial/commercial premises as well.   

(d) The authorities may also keep in mind the location of the  

land of the appellants and consider as to whether different  

chunks of  land owned by the appellants are scattered in  

between rest of the land acquired and on that count, is it  

possible or not to hive off the land of the appellants?

35) However, we make it clear that while affording this opportunity to  

the appellants to make a representation,  we are  not  providing  

fresh cause of action to the appellants,  though, we expect the  

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 39 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 40

respondents to consider the representation with open mind.

36) The upshot of the aforesaid discussion would be to allow these  

appeals partly in the manner indicated above.  However, there  

shall be no order as to costs.

.............................................J. (ANIL R. DAVE)

.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI)

NEW DELHI; MARCH 25, 2015.

Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178  of 2015 & Ors. Page 40 of 41 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)

Page 41