Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7454-7459  of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 12877-12882/2011)

Surinder Singh Brar and others etc.etc.        Appellants

versus

Union of India and others                    Respondents

with  

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7460-7463   of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 13518-13521/2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7464  of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13658/2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7465  of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13758/2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7466  of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13784/2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7467  of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13785/2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7468  of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13809/2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7469  of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 15355/2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7470  of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 15106/2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7471  of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 15782/2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7472   of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 16000/2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7473  of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 16002/2011)

Page 2

2

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7474-7475  of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 26589-26590/2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7476  of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20417/2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7477  of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20740/2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7478  of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20919/2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7479  of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 22693/2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7480  of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20853/2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7481  of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21305/2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7482   of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21612/2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7483  of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 25890/2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7484-7485  of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 17892-17893/2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7486  of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20881/2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7487  of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 27221/2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7489  of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 35545/2011)

J U D G M E N T

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 collab-

Page 3

3

oration 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 acquired land of various vil-

lages 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) sug-

gested 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 re-

served forest under Section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900. This was approved by  

the Land Scape 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 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 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 Forest Depart-

ment acquired 536.64 acres of land of various 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’) leading to the creation of the new State of Hary-

ana 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 Territory

Page 4

4

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 1 9 6 6  Act.  

5. With the passage of time, Chandigarh became an important destination for edu-

cation and attracted students from all over the country.  However, the employment op-

portunities available in the city did not match the educational facilities and this resul-

ted 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 land to the en-

trepreneurs 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 acquired between 1950 and 1977 and was lying vacant, may be utilised for establishing a world class In -

formation Technology 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:

Page 5

5

S.No. Name of Companies Plot No. Date of Allot-

ment Present Status %age status  of building Size of land

1 Infosys 1 11.06.2004,  10.11.2005 Operational 100 30.21

Non-SEZ Built to Suit Sites (in Acres)

S.No. Name of Companies Plot No. Date of Allot-

ment Status of Operation Size of land 1 Alchemist Ltd.

F-5 02.01.2006 Structure completed, expected to complete by Sep' 11 70 1.3

2 Amadeus B-11 07.12.2005 Structure completed, expected to complete by Sep' 11 80 1.41 3 Bebo Technologies Ltd. D-3 27.12.2006 Escavation done, expected to complete by Sep' 11 30 1.01 4 Compact Disc India 13 20.4 2009 Zoning plan issued, drawings will be submitted shortly 0 0.996

5 Damco Solutions Ltd. 13-A 16.8.2009 Zoning plan issued, drawings will be submitted shortly

   0 0.9

6 FCS Software Solutions Ltd. J-7

29.12.2005 Ground & First Floor operational 100 1.65

7 IDS Infotech Ltd. 1-8

2.1.2006 Escavation is on, expected to complete by Sep' 11 50 1.32

8 Karin Informatics Services Ltd. 14 01.06.2006 Applied for partial completion 100 1.5 9 Microtek International Pvt. Ltd. A-12 02.01 2006 Structure completed, expected to complete by Sep' 11 85 1.46 10 Netsmartz Infotech (1) Pvt. Ltd.

E-10 07.08.2006 Applied for partial completion 100 1.76

11 Net Solutions 15

05.06.2006 Structure completed, expected to complete by Sep' 11 80 1.6

12 PCC Technology Group C-4

17.03 2009 Letter of Allotment yet to be issued 0 1.1

13 RT Outsourcing Services Ltd. 16

12.06 2006 Building is complete & Ground Floor is operational 100 1.5

14 Second Foundation Inc. G-9 15 12 2005 Structure completed, expected to complete by Sep' 11 95 1.48

15 Virsa Systems H-6 28 12.2005 Structure completed, expected to complete by Sep' 11 80 1.3

    16 DLF Infocity Developers Ltd. 2 23.12.2003 Already Operational since Sep' 05 100 12.5

Page 6

6

6. Between 2000-2004 over 267 acres land was acquired for Phase-II of the IT Park and the plots were allotted to nine in-

dustries, the details of which are given below:  

SEZ Main Campus Site

Phase II (in Acres)

S.No. Name of Companies Plot No. Date of Allot-

ment Status of Operation Size of land

1 Wipro Technologies Ltd. 27 Resumed Resumed 0 30 Campus Sites (in Acres)

S.No. Name of Companies Plot No. Date of Allot-

ment Status of Operation Size of land

1 Tech Mahindra Ltd. 22-23 26.05.2006 Operational since Oct'09 100 15 Built to Suit Sites .                                                                                                                              (in Acres)

S.No. Name of Companies Plot No. Date of Allot-

ment Status of Operation Size of land

1 22nd Century Technologies Inc. 25-C 08.05.2008 Allotment awaited 0 0.67 2 KMG Infotech Pvt. Ltd. 25-A 05.04.2009 Allotment done, yet to submit drawings 0 1.1 3 Ramtech Software Solutions 26-A 12.03.2009 Drawings of proposed building submitted 0 0.52 4 Silicon Valley Systech Inc. 25-D 05.05.2008 SEZ approval awaited 0 0.67 5 Rolta India Ltd. 25-D Resumed 0 2.98

Non-SEZ Campus Site (in Acres)

S.No. Name of Companies Plot No. Date of Allot-

ment Status of Operation Size of land

I  1 Bharti Airtel Ltd. 21 05.06.2006 Operational since Aug'09 100 5  2 e-Sys Technologies Ltd. 21 Under litigation 0 6

7. The land allotted to Wipro Technologies Ltd. (30 acres), Rolta India Ltd. (2.98 acres) and e-Sys Technologies Ltd. (6  

acres) was subsequently resumed because they failed to set up their units.

Page 7

7

8.  Out of the remaining land of Phase-II, 135 acres was transferred to the Chand-

igarh 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 resid-

ential and other infrastructural facilities in the IT Park. The relevant portions of that  

order are extracted below:

“1. The  Administrator,  Union  Territory,  Chandigarh-,  is pleased to order to the transfer of 135 acres of  land  in  the  Chandigarh  Technology  Park  at  Kis- hangarh  in  favour  of  the  Chandigarh  Housing  Board, Chandigarh, on free hold basis, for the ex- ecution  of  the  project  of  development  and  resi- dential  and  other  infrastructural  facilities  in  the  said  park.  The  price  of  the  land,  details  of  the  land use and other terms and conditions of trans- fer of this land will be 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 Caps as consultants who would help fine tune  the  financial  package,  as  also  prepare  the  old  document.

3. Broad guidelines are spelt out hereunder:-

I. The  whole  exercise  would  involve  a  joint  venture  with  the  private  party  through  an  agreement,  but  without  creating  a  joint  venture company.

II. No  capital  expenditure  would  be  involved  on  the  part  of  the  Chandigarh  Administra- tion.  

III. 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 reporting of gross revenues.

Page 8

8

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.”

9. Though, the ostensible object of transferring land to the Board was develop-

ment 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 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.

(a) The  entire  land  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  Chandigarh Administration.

8. Modalities     of    disposal     of service/studio apartments and com- mercial property

The  service/studio  apartments  and  the  commercial  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 /  studio  apartments  and the commercial  property.  30% share will not be taken of the subse- quent revenues from these two properties.

9. 10%    Reservation    for    allotment    to I.T. professionals.

10% dwelling units may be allowed to be  purchased  by  I.T.  companies  established  in  Chandigarh  or  its  employees.  The  de- tailed  modalities  will  be  worked  out  by  CHB separately.”

Page 9

9

10. In furtherance of the aforesaid decision, the Board 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 Liv-

ing) to attract prospective buyers of residential and commercial properties, M/s Pars-

vnath 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 for Phase-II to a private  

developer,  Land Acquisition Officer,  Union Territory,  Chandigarh (hereinafter  de-

scribed as, ‘the LAO’) sent Memo No. Teh.(LA)/LAO/2005/37365 dated 15.12.2005  

to the Director, Information Technology, Chandigarh with reference to some meeting  

held on 9.12.2005 under the 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 un-

der:

“From The Land Acquisition Officer, UT, Chandigarh.

To The Director Information Technology, Chandigarh Administration,  Chandigarh.

Memo No. Teh (LA)/LAO/2005/37366 Dated,   Chandigarh, the 15/12/05

Page 10

10

Subject : Acquisition of land in Village Manimajra for  2nd phase of I.T. Park.

 This refers to minutes of the meeting held on 09.12.2005 under the  

chairmanship  of  Sh.  S.K.  Sandhu,  Finance  Secretary/Secretary  Information  Technology, Chandigarh Administration, wherein it was emphasized to acquire  50 acres of land adjoining to the present I.T. Park in Kishangarh (Manimajra)  for construction of 2nd phase of IT. Park.

You are,  therefore,  requested  to  provide drawing of  the land re- quired to be acquired so that further action to acquire the land is initiated.

Sd/- 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  

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 Chairmanship of Sh. S.K. Sandhu, Finance   Secretary/Secretary Information Technology, Chandigarh Administration.

A  meeting  was  held  under  the  Chairmanship  of  Sh.  S.K.  Sandhu. Finance Secretary/Secretary Information Technology to review the progress of  development of the first & second phases of Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park. The fol- lowing officers were present :-

1.Smt. Renu Saigal, Chief Architect 2.Sh. V.K. Bhardwaj, Chief Engineer 3.Sh. Wazeer Singh Goyat, Land Acquisition Officer 4.Sh. Vivek Atray, Director Information Technology 5.Sh. N.S. Brar, Assistant Estate Officer. 6.Dr. Sanjay Tyagi, Director STPI Mohali. 7.Sh. M.L Arora, Senior Town Planner 8.     Sh. Vaibhav Mittal, Promotion & Information Officer

The following decisions were taken:-

1. It was decided that the infrastructure development for the second phase consisting of 120 acres  for I.T. services and 130 acres for non IT service may be taken up by the 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 CT P  Phase-1 on an urgent basis.  The road next to Infosys is to be shifted as already urgently.

Page 11

11

3. It was decided that the Build to Suit Sites which have already been allotted would be formally  handed over to the allottees and their construction may begin by next month.

4. It was also decided that the power line in the entire area com- prising CTP Phase-I and Phase-II may be shifted underground  along the roads.  

5. Five new Build to Suit Sites have also been earmarked as per  the plan in the CT P  Phase-I.  This plan was approved.

6. Regarding land scaping it was decided that Chief Architect UT, Chief Engineer UT and Direc- tor Information 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.

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.  

          Meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the chair.

                           (S.K.Sandhu) FS/SIT”

13. The Director, Information Technology sent DO No. 107 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. After 4 days, he  

sent letter dated 16.1.2006 to the 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:

Page 12

12

“From

The Land Acquisition Officer, UT, Chandigarh

To,

The Finance Secretary,  Chandigarh Administration,  Chandigarh.

Memo No. Kgo (LA)/LAO/2006/1296 Dated, Chandigarh, the 16/1/06

Subject: Acquisition of remaining land in Village Manimajra, UT,  Chandigarh.  

This refers to the minutes of the meeting held on 29.12.2005 under the  chairmanship  of  the  Finance  Secretary-cum-Secretary,  Information  Technology, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh, wherein it was  decided to acquire 50 acres of land adjoining to the present I.T. Park  in village Kishangarh (Manimajra) for construction of 2nd phase of I.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 ac- tion is initiated, but no communication has been received till date.

Subsequently, in a meeting held on 04.01.2006, it was desired to ac- quire the  land of Village Manimajra  as  maximum as can be. Accordingly, an intensive  survey of  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 I.T. Park. However,  there are about 275 structures in the shape of small houses in the locality called ‘Shastri Na- gar’, 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 crores (approx- imately) would be required on account of 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 compensa- tion of these fruit-bearing trees would be invariably very high.

You are, therefore, requested to convey the decision on the aforesaid  proposal.

Page 13

13

Land Acquisition Officer UT, Chandigarh.

                 Dated: 16/1/06”

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., 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 Ad-

ministration filed affidavit dated 10.9.2012, paragraph 4 whereof reads as under:  

“4. That in response to courts query, the depo- nent respectfully submits as under:

(i)There was no meeting held on 29.12.2005. This is  a typo- graphical error in the letter dated 16.01.2006. The 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. (ii)There  was  a  meeting  held  on  04.01.2006,  which  was  at- tended by Land Acquisition Officer; Director, IT and Jt. Secre- tary  (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 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

The Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration,

No. PA/LAO/1019 Dt:20.4.06

To The Land Acquisition Officer,

Page 14

14

U.T. Chandigarh.

Memo No.43/3/157-UTFI(5)-06/2123 Dated, Chandigarh the 18.4.06

Subject:  -  Acquisition  of  land  measuring  280  acres  in  village  Kishangarh (Manimajra).

The matter regarding acquisition of land measuring 280 acres  in village Kishangarh Manimajra has been discussed for the develop- ment of 2nd Phase of I.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 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,

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  acquisition  of  104.83  acres  land.  The  Adviser  to  the  

Administrator,  Union  Territory,  Chandigarh  (hereinafter  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 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 DEPARTMENT N O T I F I C A T I O N

Page 15

15

No.43/3/229-UTF(5)-2006/   Dated:

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 Majra; the planned development and expansion of Chandigarh  Technology Park' in the village Mani Majra, H.B.No.375, Union Ter- ritory, Chandigarh.

Now, therefore, this Notification under the provisions of 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 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 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 month from the publica- tion 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.  

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 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

Page 16

16

Park  was  lying  unutilized  and,  therefore,  there  was  no  justification  to  acquire  

additional land.  The Administrator rejected the representation of Shri Brar vide his  

letter dated 31.7.2006, which is reproduced below:

“General (Retd.) S.F. Rodrigues      RAJ BHAVAN               PVSM, VSM                    CHANDIGARH 160019          Governor of Punjab    JULY 31, 2006                    and            Administrator Union Territory, Chandigarh

I  am  in  receipt  of  your  representation  dated  12.7.2006  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 have to be taken into account.  The  Administration  has  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  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  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  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 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

Page 17

17

the acquired land has to be kept vacant, to maintain the  character of the city.

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,

  [General (Retd.) S.F. Rodrigues PVSM, VSM].”

19. Some of the landowners including Brig. Kuldip Singh 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  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:-

3 (vii) FAR Allowed in IT Park Area: a.Built to suit site (BTS) 1.25 b.Campus sites 0.5

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.-II of Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park  has been done.  However the III 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.  

4(d) The area in question is not yet planned hence, detail of area  cannot be provided.

Page 18

18

4(1) THE PLANNING OF Phase I & II of the Rajiv Gandhi  Technology Park has been completed. In the side area the plan- ning 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.

4(j,k)   It is a policy matter to be decided at higher level.  

5 (a) Originally the Chandigarh was planned for five lacs 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 approxi- mately on the basis of growth rate projections.  

(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)

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 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.

(c) This acquisition is against the provisions of the Forest (Con- servation) Act, 1980, which does not allow deforestation lead- ing to environmental deterioration.

(d) The Chandigarh Administration has not obtained 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 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 Chandigarh.

Page 19

19

(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.

(h)  The Chandigarh Administration has acquired large chunks  of land over past 15 years, most of which is still lying unuti- lized or encroached. He enumerated a number of notifications  issued by the Chandigarh Administration vide which the lands  have been acquired by the Chandigarh Administration.

(i) The land is being acquired with the intention or profiteering.

(j) The Chandigarh Administration has not been able to provide  a proper plan for the development and utilization of the land to  be acquired.

(k)  The Administration has not framed any scheme for rehabili- tation of the landowners whose land is acquired and they have been  uprooted  more than once.  

(l) 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.  

(m) Most of the land stands already acquired and reserved for I.T  Park has not so far utilized then what is the necessity to acquire this land.

(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 be cut, though it is on the met- talled road in terms of Forest Act, then how the Administration  would afford to cut the 20 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  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 re- produced below:

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 possible for the

Page 20

20

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 pur- poses mentioned for which the land is sought to be acquired  without specifying as to how much land is needed for each pur- pose. The four purposes mentioned are:

i) the provision of city level infrastructure ii) the   regulated   urban   development   of  area between  

Chandigarh and Mani Majra iii) the planned development iv) expansion of Chandigarh Technology Park.

The petitioner does not know as to how much area is needed for  either of these purposes, what is the meaning of city level infra- structure and what is the difference between regulated urban de- velopment and planned development. In fact 100 acres of land  is not big enough an area for either of the purposes in itself.  Therefore, to enable the right holders to raise objections effec- tively 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).

The impugned acquisition proceedings have been undertaken  without the concurrence of the Defence Ministry, Government  of India. Chandigarh is surrounded by strategic defence installa- tions like the Mullapur Garibdas Air Force Station, Head Quar- ters of the Western Command at Chandimandir, Chandigarh Air  Force Station, Kasauli Air Force Station, etc. Infact the Mulla- pur Garibdas Air Force Station houses most  modern missiles  and radars while Chandimandir houses a strategic communica- tion centre. Thus, urbanising the area in Village Mani Majra, Dis- trict Chandigarh may lead to compromising with the security of the nation.

Violation of the Periphery Act: The impugned notification itself is violative of the 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 Control Act. To the knowledge  of the objectors no permission has been obtained, as of date, by the Chandigarh Adminis- tration for the development of the aforementioned land from the authority under the Pe- riphery Control Act and consequently the entire acquisition proceedings are illegal, null  and void.

Over the past 15 years the Chandigarh Administration has com- pulsorily acquired huge chunks of land in Village Manimajra,  District  Chandigarh  purportedly  for  various  public  purposes.  However, in most cases the areas acquired have not been fully  utilized and are either  lying vacant  or  have been encroached

Page 21

21

upon. In this scenario the action of the Chandigarh Administra- tion to acquire another huge chunk of land in Village Manima- jra  under  the  impugned  notification  is  incomprehensible  and  cannot be justified. The details of the notifications issued under  Sections 4 and 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 unuti- lized or under encroachment are as under:

• Notification  No.3/117-UTFI(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 "resident-cum-com- mercial complex scheme no.2";

• Notification  No.3/117-UTFI(4)-89/12209  dated  11.9.1989 issued under Section 6 of the LA Act covering  39.27  acres  of  land  in  Village  Manimajra,  District  Chandigarh  for  the  public  purpose  of  "residen- tial-cum-commercial complex scheme no.2 and construc- tion of multi-specialty hospital";

• Notification  No.3/117-UTFI(4)-89/12539  dated  18.10.1989 issued under Section 6 of the LA Act cover- ing  29.75 acres  of  land in  Village  Manimajra,  District  Chandigarh  for  the  public  purpose  of  "residen- tial-cum-commercial complex scheme no.2"

• Notification  No.3/117-UTFI(4)-89/12544  dated  18.10.1989 issued under Section 6 of the LA Act cover- ing  37.55 acres  of  land in  Village  Manimajra,  District  Chandigarh  for  the  public  purpose  of  "residen- tial-cum-commercial complex scheme no.2";

• Notification No.3/117-UTFI(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 no.2";

• Notification  No.3/117-UTFI(4)-90/1366  dated  13/14.2.1990 issued under Section 6 of the LA Act cov- ering 21.51 acres of land in Village Manimajra, District  Chandigarh  for  the  public  purpose  of  "residen- tial-cum-commercial complex scheme no.2";

• Notification  No.3/117-UTFI(4)-91/7628  dated  8.8.1991  issued  under  Section  6  of  the  LA Act  covering  40.84

Page 22

22

acres of land in Village Manimajra, District Chandigarh  for  the  public  purpose  of  "residential-cum-commercial;  complex scheme no.3";

• Notification No. UTFI(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 of a college building and sports  stadium etc. scheme no.3";

• Notification No.UTFI(4)-93/906 dated 29.1.1993 issued  under Section 6 of the LA Act covering 39.96 acres of  land in Village Manimajra,  District Chandigarh for  the  public purpose of "residential-cum-commercial complex  and  for  the  construction  of  municipal  park  and public  utility building scheme no.3";

• Notification  no.A-32017/15/PI/91/28  dated  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".

Public purpose not defined:

In the impugned notification the Chandigarh Administration has  proposed to acquire the land for the alleged public purpose of:

"....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.

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 pur- pose. In fact, the Chandigarh Administration itself has neither developed nor is it run- ning the technology park but has allotted the land to DLF Ltd., a private entrepreneur for  this purpose. DLF Ltd. has profiteered by selling the area further to other private compa- nies. Thus the whole idea behind the impugned acquisition proceedings is to assist a pri- vate entrepreneur to profiteer. No person from the ordinary public will be benefited in  any way. In today's 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 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

Page 23

23

to private developers at 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 com- mon use etc. it is clear that it is for the purpose of a particular industry only. The Chandi - garh 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 sought  to be acquired under the impugned notification are the provi- sion of city level infrastructure, the regulated development of  the area between Chandigarh and Manimajra, the planned de- velopment and expansion of Chandigarh Technology Park. The  said alleged public purposes mentioned in the impugned notifi- cation are extremely vague and non-specific leaving one com- pletely in the dark as to what actually the Chandigarh Adminis- tration intends to do with the acquired land. No particular resi- dential  or  commercial  scheme  has  been  drawn  up  by  the  Chandigarh  Administration  for  acquiring  the  land in  dispute.  The acquisition of valuable land under the impugned notifica- tion  thus  amounts  to  a  colourable  exercise  of  power  by  the  Chandigarh Administration.

Under the impugned notification the purported public 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.  The concern for  the ecology  and environment is completely necessary. Rather the acquisi- tion under the impugned notification would lead to complete  destruction  of  the  land  sought  to  be  acquired  under  the  im- pugned notification.

The public purpose must not only be specified in the notifica- tion issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894  but in order to enable an objector to effectively object under  Section 5-A the details of the public purpose, alongwith the de- tails 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 plan/scheme is available in the of- fice 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 that may  be required.

Page 24

24

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 that it is closer to the defence area adjoining Chandimandir and can interfere in  the communication system and sensitive defence installations. The public purpose men- tioned is vague and as such it is not possible for the right holders to raise objections  against the same, 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  adjacent to the Sukhna Choe and the area declared as a reserved  forest. If the land in dispute and its surrounding areas are al- lowed to be urbanised it will result  in the degradation of the  habitat  and  disturb  the  thousands  of  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 Gov- ernment and is a protected area and is known as the Sukhna  Wildlife Sanctuary. If high rise buildings are allowed to be con- structed on the land being acquired under the impugned notifi- cation 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 precious wildlife and fauna existing  there. Though trees may be able to survive the onslaught of ur- banisation, 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.

It would also be pertinent to mention here that the land sought  to be acquired is forest land as also agricultural land. The pro- posed acquisition will result in the extinction, uprooting & lev- eling of these trees which are in the prime of life. The proposed acquisi- tion is violative of the climate 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 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 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

Page 25

25

are hundreds of fruit bearing trees and non-fruit bearing trees  standing. This green area acts as a barrier between the urban- ized 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 season thus putting in danger the city of Chandigarh  itself. As such the dangers to the ecology and subsequently to  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  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 Ad- ministration needs to define its role viz a viz the citizen, is it here to pro- tect 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 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 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 or- chards are the lungs of a city and have a very important envi- ronmental function to perform. Such lands cannot be acquired  under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Chandigarh Administration has not carried out an Environ- mental Impact Assessment study which is extremely necessary  before  an  exercise  of  this  magnitude  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 geo- logical study of the area and conduct surveys before deciding to  demolish the green belt around Chandigarh which the Chandi- garh Administration has not done. Every place cannot be suit- able 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 earthquakes. Man cannot  continue to 'pick nature's pocket'. He must discipline himself.

No Planning/Scheme exists and Discrimination:

Page 26

26

The impugned notification is illegal and void in as much as no  plans are available in the office of the Land Acquisition Collec- tor with respect to the alleged city level infrastructure to be set  up. There is no plan available for the protection of the ecology and envi- ronment and for setting up/expansion of the Chandigarh Technology Park.

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 protection  of ecology and environment of Sukhna Choe Watershed was  available in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector. A rep- resentative of the petitioner was informed by the office of the  Chief Architect that none of the above particulars/scheme/site  plans  were  available  with  them  as  none  have  been  framed/drawn up by the Chandigarh Administration nor is rele- vant 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,  therefore, violates the rights of the petitioner to effectively ob- ject to the proposed acquisition in terms of Section 5-A of the  Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Consequently the entire proceed- ings are illegal, null and void.

The Chandigarh Administration has not even designated a plan- ning agency that could have shown how the area under acquisi- tion is to be developed and utilized. The Chandigarh Adminis- tration has not been able to produce a proper plan for the devel- opment  of  the  so-called  Technology  Park.  No  consideration  seems to have been taken of the following points:

a) geographical  features that  is  physiography, climate,  water,  soils and other physical resources;

b) means of communication and accessibility; c) distribution of the present and future population; d) industrial location and growth trends; e) economic base and commercial activities; f) preservation of historical and cultural heritage; g) urban expansion and periphery management; h) ecological and environmental balance; i) balanced regional development of the City Beautiful; j) dispersal of economic activities to alleviate pressure on the  

city.

It is clear that no such plan existed at the time issuance of the  impugned notification  and therefore  the  petitioner  have  been

Page 27

27

denied  a  basic  right  of  examining the  plans and other  docu- ments asked for.”

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  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 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 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 alone.

MARKET  VALUE,  MAKING  UNDUE  AND  ILLEGAL  PROFIT BY THE UT ADMINISTRTION/ITS AGENCIES:

The sole purpose of the Administration appears to be is 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.

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 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 Private Limited for a sum of Rs. 821.21 crores or  approx. 630 lacs per acre. This is approximately 70 times the  collector's rate.

Page 28

28

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 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.

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 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 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.”

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:

“OBSERVATIONS:

After seeing the revenue record and spot inspection, I find no merits  in the objections raised by the Objectors. 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 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

Page 29

29

structures  as  existed  on the  site  called  Shastri  Nagar  have  been  raised in violation of the Punjab New Capital (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  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 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 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  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."

1(2) It  extends to that  area of  the State of  Punjab which is  adjacent to and is within a distance of ten 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."

"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  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. Brar, IPS (Retd.) that  the  Administration  has  been  acquiring  the  land  for  various  development projects being implemented for the public good. He

Page 30

30

further emphasized that the future of Union Territory, Chandigarh  does not lie in agriculture, but we have to concentrate and invest in  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.  

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 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 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  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.

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-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,  charitable,  community/institutional  purposes  and  for  rehabilitation  of  slum- dwellers.”

23. Thereafter, the office of the Finance Secretary prepared a note incorporating  

therein  the  observations  of  the  LAO.  The  Finance  Secretary  recorded  his  

comments and the Adviser appended his signature signifying his approval to the

Page 31

31

recommendations of the LAO. For the sake of reference, the office note and the  

comments of the Finance Secretary are reproduced below:  

“Subject: Report  u/s  5-A for  acquisition of  land  measuring 104.83  acres  in  Manimajra – Notification u/s 6.

The Land Acquisition Officer has requested to accord Ad- ministrative approval for the issuance of notification Under  Section of the Land Acquisition Act and also for the accep- tance 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 pur- pose namely "the provision of city level  infrastructure,  the  regulated urban development of  the  area between Chandi- garh and Manimajra: the planned development and expansion  to  Chandigarh  Technology  Park  in  Village  Manimajra,  U.T.  Chandigarh.

The Administration had issued notification Under Section 4 of  the Act for the acquisition of said land. The Land Acquisition Offi- cer has invited objections and sixteen land owners have filled their  objections.

Sh. P.C. Dhiman appeared on behalf of some land 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 administra- tion earlier has not been utilized. It has further been objected  that emaciate compensation is being given to the land own- ers whereas the slum dwellers  occupying government land  are being rehabilitated and the land owners are being made  home less. The Administration is acquiring land for the public  purpose for pocketing hefty profits by giving the land to pri- vate developers. No rehabilitation scheme for the land own- ers have been framed.

Some other land owners have also raised the similar  objec- tions. Mrs. Ritu Joshi objected that the land is being acquired is be- ing given for the commercial activities whereas, she has not permit- ted the land for the hotel project when she applied once.

The Land Acquisition Officer after examining 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 struc- ture existing on the site called Shastri Nagar has been raised  in violation of the periphery control act. The objection that  the Administration is paying meager compensation is base- less as reported by the Land Acquisition Officer. The compen-

Page 32

32

sation is determined as per the existing provision of the law.  The landowners are not only paid to award calculated on the  basis of the collector rate but also solatium @ of 30% and ad- ditional 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.

The Administration is not a profit-making organization and no  surpluses are being generated from acquisition or from further allot- ment 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-activities,  public  amenities,  public-toilets,  dumping-grounds, sewerage-treatment plants, Education Institutions,  Hospitals, Electricity Grid Station, Tube well and Community Cen- ters etc. some land is allotted at subsidized rates also in public inter- est  for  religious,  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 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 Ac- quisition Officer after receiving objections Under Section 5- A for  the acquiring land measuring 104.83 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’.

Submitted for order please.”

“Subject: Land Acquisition  Case: Village  Manimajra, Hadbast No.375, Union  Territory, Chandigarh.

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 Chandigarh and Manimajra, the planned development and ex- pansion of Chandigarh Technology Park". This acquisition is for the Phase III of the  Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park.

In  this  case,  the  notification  for  acquiring  land  measuring  104.83 acres under section 4 was issued on 27.6.2006. The Land Ac- quisition Officer invited objections from land owners.  16 persons filed  their objections in all.

The Land Acquisition Officer heard the pleadings of the objec- tors/their counsels. The gist of their pleadings have been cited by the  LAO from pages 412-415 of his report (PUC).

Page 33

33

The findings of the LAO in respect of each set of objections can  be read at pages 416-418 of his report. 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.

On examination of these reports, it is found that the LAO's find- ings 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.,  Chandi- garh.

A.A.'s approval would be required in this case.    SSF 28.2.2007

AA    Sd

       28.2.2007”

24. On the same day, the declarations issued under Section 6(1) were published  

in official gazette dated 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 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  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  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  Land  Acquisition Collector, UT, Chandigarh.”

(emphasis supplied)

25. The  appellants  challenged  the  acquisition  proceedings  in  Writ  Petition

Page 34

34

No.5065/2007 and batch and prayed that Notifications dated 26.6.2006, 2.8.2006  

and 28.2.2007 be 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 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  

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 (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  

Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (1993) 2 SCC 662, State of T.N.  

v. L. Krishnan (1996) 1 SCC 250, Ajay Krishan Shinghal v. Union of India (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  

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

Page 35

35

acquisition  of  land;  that  the  landowners  had  been  given  opportunity  to  file  

objections and that the declaration was issued 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)  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 III; that the decision taken by the 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.  

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  

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  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

Page 36

36

Administrator  could exercise  powers  under  the Act  and that  too subject  to  the  

control of the President and no other authority could have exercised 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 satisfaction that the land was needed  

for a public purpose.  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 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  III  ignoring  that  about  half  of  the  land  acquired  for  Phase  II  had  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 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 argument from the reply given by the  

Central Public Information Officer to  Brig Kuldip Singh Kehlon and pointed out

Page 37

37

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 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 acquisition  

of additional land.

28. Shri  Dinesh  Dwivedi,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  some  other  

appellants,  pointed out that general delegation 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 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.

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  the  acquisition  

proceedings ignoring that the Chandigarh Administration had not sought clearance

Page 38

38

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 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 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 purpose  

and in  these  cases,  the competent  authority  had not  at  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  the  High  Court  

committed serious error by negating the appellants’ challenge to the acquisition of  

their land ignoring its 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  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  Dinesh  Dwivedi  and  Shri  Shekhar

Page 39

39

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.

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 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 32/n. I am in broad agreement with the  recommendations on pages 31 and 32/n subject to the follow- ing:

(i) If any Advisory is required to be issued to the UT Adminis- tration,  a  draft  of  the  Advisory may  be  put  up  to  me  first  through HS.

(ii) Where the Inquiry Officer has agreed with the audit find- ings, they may be reduced to the  form of  a preliminary show  cause notice and the preliminary show cause notice may be is- sued 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  30.9.2010  and they  may  be  given  time  until  15.10.2010 to reply to the preliminary show cause notices.

(iii) Where the IO 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 CCA(H) may be requested  to offer his comments by 15.10.2010.

Page 40

40

(iv) Any review of the powers  delegated to the Administrator of Chandigarh may be done only  in 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 CVC may deem fit.”

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 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) 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  III  of  IT  Park  because  no  such  point  was  argued  on  behalf  of  the  

appellants. He then submitted that the Advisor 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 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

Page 41

41

5A(1), which were duly considered by the LAO.  Dr. Dhawan emphasised 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 Government has not been 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 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 Audit Team and the  

One-Man Committee cannot be made basis for quashing the acquisition of land for  

Phase III 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),  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).  

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.

Page 42

42

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:  

“Prior to 1-11-56 “After 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  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.

Provided  that  the  President  shall  not  act  thorough  the  Government of a neighbouring  State save after –

(a) consulting the  Government concerned  and

(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  

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  such  designation  as  he may specify.

(2) Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  Part  VI,  the  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.

Substituted by the Constitution   (Seventh  Amendment)  Act,   1956.”

Page 43

43

to a part of a State.”

“MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

New Delhi, the 1st November, 1966

S.O.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.

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 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;

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 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 day of November, 1966, the  powers and functions of  the State  Government  under any such  law.

[No.l3/l/66-CHD]”

“No.5/1/66-CHD GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI-II, the 1st November, 1966.

NOTIFICATION

G.S.R.1675-In 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

Page 44

44

of Chief Commissioner of Union Territory of Chandigarh shall be  authenticated by the signature of a Secretary/a Deputy Secretary  an  Under  Secretary,  an  Assistant  Secretary  in  any  of  the  departments of the Chandigarh Administration.

Sd/-  A.D.Pande,

JOINT SECRETARY”

“NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the   8 October, 1968,

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, 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  Chandigarh, the  President  hereby  directs  that,  subject  to  his  control and until further orders, the powers and functions of the  appropriate Government under -

(i) the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (l 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,

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]

Sd/-  (K.R. Prabhu)

Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India.”

“GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

NEW DELHI-1,        the 1st January, 1970 11th Pausa, 1891

Page 45

45

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 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 in the Ministry of External Affairs No. S.0.  3165, dated the 5th November, 1963, and in the Ministry of Home  Affairs Nos.  S.O. 190, dated the 8th January, 1964, S.0. 3953,  dated  the  21st  December,  1966  and  S.O.  3612,  dated  the  8th  October,  1968,  the  President  hereby  directs  that,  subject  his  control and until further orders, the powers and functions of the  appropriate Government under-

(i) the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (l 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,

shall  also be exercised and discharged by the Administrator  of  every Union territory (whether known as the Administrator, Chief  Commissioner or the Lieutenant Governor), within the respective  Union territories.

(No.F.2/8/68-UTL)

Sd/-  (P.N. KAUL)

DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA”

“BHARAT SARKAR / GOVERNMENT OF INDIA GRIH MANTRALAYA / MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

New Delhi, the 14th Aug, 89

NOTIFICATION

S.O.  642(E)  In  pursuance  of  clause  (1)  of  Article  239  of  the  Constitution and in suppression of all previous notifications relating

Page 46

46

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  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 administrator  of  such Union  Territory (Whether known as 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; and (ii) the land acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963.

NO.U-11030/1/89-UTL/ 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, 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

HOME   DEPARTM ENT

Notification The 25th February. 1988.

No. LD-88/1302.—In. exercise of the powers conferred by 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  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

Page 47

47

cases  (as  mentioned  in  the  Schedule  annexed  hereto)  which  shall  be  submitted to the Administrator for final orders:—

SCHEDULE

(i) Proposals regarding suspension, remission of sentences under sec- tion 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(ii) Cases raising question of policy and cases of administrative impor- tance.

(iii) Cases which effect or are likely to effect peace and tranquility of  the State.

(iv) Cases   which effect the relations of Union Territory Administra- tion  with   other State Governments, the Supreme Court or the  High Court.

(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.

(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. (ix) Cases relating to the   application of Acts of  Parliament or exten-

sion of any State Act under section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisa- tion Act to the Union Territory, Chandigarh.

(x) Cases where modification of   the orders passed by the predeces- sors of the present Administrator are involved.

(xi) Proposals for the creation or abolition of Class-I posts. (xii) Such other cases or class of cases as the Administrator may con-

sider necessary or such other cases where his orders are necessarily  to be 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

(Sd.)  P. K. VERMA,

Home Secretary,  Chandigarh Administration.”

     “No.U.14020/17/84 - UTS

Government of India

      Ministry of Home Affairs

Page 48

48

     New Delhi-110001, the 2nd June, 1984.

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 : 1954 1/2),  Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh will be redesignated as Ad- viser to the Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh.

(Baleshwar Rai)                  Deputy Secretary to the Government of India.”

   “(FOR PUBLICATION IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA  

        PART  I   SECTION 2)

No.U.14020/17/84 – UTS. Pt.

Government of India

      Ministry of Home Affairs

New Delhi-110001, the 30th May, 1985.

NOTIFICATION

Consequent upon the concurrent appointment of Shri Ar- jun Singh, Governor of Punjab, as Administrator of the Union  Territory of Chandigarh, Shri K. Banarji,  IAS (UT : 1954 1/2),  Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh will be redesignated as Ad- viser to the Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh.

(Baleshwar Rai)                  Director.”

   “CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL

NOTIFICATION

The 27 November, 1999 No.1015-GOI-IH (4)-99/22972

Page 49

49

Consequent upon the appointment of Lieutenant-General  (Retd.) Jack Frederick Ralph Jacob, PVSM, Governor of Pun- jab 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  communication  bearing  No.F.29- CA(I)/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 .

N. K. Jain           Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration.”

   “CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION    DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL

NOTIFICATION

The 8th May, 2003

No.IH (4)-2003/8264

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 vide Rashtrapati Bhawan commu- nication bearing No.F.31-CA(I)/2003, dated the 2nd May, 2003.  Justice Om Prakash Verma (Retd.) has assumed charge as Ad- ministrator  of  the  Union  Territory  of  Chandigarh  on  the  forenoon of 8th May, 2003 .

R. S. Gujral,           Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration.”

        “CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL

NOTIFICATION September, 2004 Ist Oct. 2004

Page 50

50

No.IH (4)-2004/18018

Consequent upon the appointment of Dr. Akhlaq-ur-Rah- man 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 commu- nication bearing No.F.31-CA(I)/2004, dated the 28th September,  2004,  Dr.  Akhlaq-ur-Rahman Kidwai  has assumed charge as  Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh on the af- ternoon of 30th September, 2004 .

R. S. Gujral,           Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration.”

        “CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL

NOTIFICATION  4.11.2004

No.22/S/39/IH (4)-2004/20197

Consequent upon the appointment of Dr. Akhlaq-ur-Rah- man 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 30th Octo- ber,  2004 conveyed vide Rashtrapati  Bhawan communication  bearing No.F.31-CA(I)/2004, dated the 30th October, 2004, Dr.  Akhlaq-ur-Rahman  Kidwai  has  assumed  charge  as  Adminis- trator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh on the forenoon of  the 3rd November, 2004 .

R. S. Gujral,           Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration.”

     “CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION    DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL

NOTIFICATION

The 17th November, 2004

Page 51

51

No.22/S/39/IH (4)-2004/20890

Consequent upon the appointment of General (Retd.) S.  F. Rodrigues, PVSM, VSM, Governor of Punjab as Adminis- trator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh in addition to his  duties as Governor of Punjab vide order of the President of In- dia, dated the 8th November, 2004, conveyed vide Rashtrapati  Bhawan communication bearing No.F.31-CA(I)/2004, dated the  8th November, 2004, General (Retd.) S. F. Rodrigues, PVSM,  VSM, has assumed charge as Administrator of the Union Territ- ory of Chandigarh on the afternoon of 18th November, 2004 .

R. S. Gujral,           Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration.”

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,  

Chandigarh. The same read as under:  

    “CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION  DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL

NOTIFICATION

Dated, the 12th January, 2001. No.59(GOI)-IH (4)-2001/786

Consequent upon her appointment as Adviser to the  Ad- ministrator,   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).  R. S. Gujral,

         Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration.”

    “CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION  DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL

NOTIFICATION

Page 52

52

Dated, the 15.1.2003.

No.IH (4)-2002/913

Consequent upon his appointment as Adviser to the  Ad- ministrator, 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.   

R. S. Gujral,           Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration.”

    “CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION   DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL

ORDER

In pursuance  of  the  Government  of  India,  Ministry  of  Home Affairs,  New Delhi's  order  bearing Endst.  No.  14020/  9/2002-UTS.I, dated the 10th September, 2003, the Adminis- trator,  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 immedi- ate effect.

2. In pursuance of the aforesaid orders of the Government  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 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)

Ashok Sangwan,           Joint Secretary Personnel,

Chandigarh Administration”

Page 53

53

         “CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION  DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL

NOTIFICATION

Dated, the 21.11.2003. No.IH (4)-2003/21655

Consequent upon his appointment as Adviser to the  Ad- ministrator,  Union  Territory,  Chandigarh,  Sh.  Lalit  Sharma,  IAS (AGMU:1971) has taken over the charge of the said post  with effect from the afternoon of 21.11.2003, relieving Sh. R.S.  Gujral, IAS (HY-1976), Home Secretary, Chandigarh Adminis- tration, of this additional charge.    

R. S. Gujral,           Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration.”

           “CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL

NOTIFICATION Dated, the 01.01.07

No.22/2/47-IH (4)-2007/19619

Consequent upon his appointment as Adviser to the  Ad- ministrator,  Union  Territory,  Chandigarh,  Sh.  Pradip  Mehra,  IAS (AGMU:1975) assumed the charge of the said post with ef- fect from the afternoon of 30.09.2007.  

Krishna Mohan,           Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration.”

38. The unamended Article 239 envisaged administration of the States specified  

in Part C of the First Schedule of the 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

Page 54

54

subject  to  any  law  enacted  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 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 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 empowered to appoint the  

Governor of State as the Administrator to an adjoining Union Territory and once  

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  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.   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

Page 55

55

authenticated by the signatures of the specified officers.  These notifications clearly  

brought out 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  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  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 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 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 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.

Page 56

56

41. There is marked distinction in the language of the 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 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 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.  

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  ‘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 context of the report of the Special Auditor and  

the One-Man 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

Page 57

57

Government’ under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.  

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  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 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  ‘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  

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 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  25.2.1988  were  not  

delegated to the Adviser. It is also apposite to note that Notification dated 14.8.1989  

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

Page 58

58

various Union Territories.  Therefore, 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  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 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 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.

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  

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

Page 59

59

not entertaining the same, but a careful 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 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 which led to the enactment of the Punjab New Capital  

(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 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 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 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.

47. The reason why the LAO did not apply his mind to the objections filed by the

Page 60

60

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  

thought of making recommendations contrary to 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  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 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.  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 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 of Section 5A(2) read with Section  

6(1). They could not muster courage of expressing an independent opinion on the  

issue of compliance of Section 5A and need of the land for the specified public

Page 61

61

purposes.  The noting recorded by the Special Secretary, Finance, which has been  

extracted  hereinabove  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 sections ‘the  

appropriate 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 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 the acquisition of land of citizens signifies their total lack of respect  

for  the  constitutional  provision  contained  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 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.

49. At this stage, it will be useful to notice the provisions of Sections 3(ee), 3(f)  

(as substituted by Act No.68 of 1984), 4(1), 5A and 6(1).  The same read as under:

Page 64

64

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 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) irrespective of whether one report or different reports  has or have been made (wherever required) under section 5A,  sub-section (2):

Provided that no declaration in respect  of any particular land  covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (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  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 (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after 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 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 I.—In computing any of the periods referred to in  the  first  proviso,  the  period  during  which  any  action  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  for  such property is to be paid out of the funds of 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 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

Page 65

65

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 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 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, 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  appropriate  

Government that land in any locality is needed or 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 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.

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 in the locality to  

the Collector. The Collector is required to give the objector an opportunity of being

Page 66

66

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.

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 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 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 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  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

Page 67

67

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  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 Section 6(1) shall be  

conclusive evidence of the fact that land is needed for a public purpose. After publica-

tion 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). 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 compensa-

tion. 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 con-

tained 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 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 principle  that a person whose property is being or is intended to be ac- quired should have a proper and reasonable opportunity of per-

Page 68

68

suading the authorities concerned that acquisition of the prop- erty belonging to that person should not be made. We may refer  to the 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 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 ap- propriate Government on the objections is then final. The de- claration 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 inter- ested to file objections against the proposed acquisition and for  the disposal of their objections.”

(emphasis supplied)

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

 “……it is fundamental that compulsory taking of a man's prop- erty is a serious matter and the smaller the man the more seri- ous the matter. Hearing him before depriving him is both reas- onable and pre-emptive of arbitrariness, and denial of this ad- ministrative fairness is constitutional anathema except for good  reasons.”

57. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.  v.  Darius 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 en- quiry as he may think necessary whereupon he must submit a  report  to  the  appropriate  Government  in  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 the report. On receipt of such a report together with the re- cords  of  the  case,  the  Government  is  to  render  a  decision

Page 69

69

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. ………. However, considerations of the ob- jections by the owner of the land and the acceptance of the re- commendations 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 mind not  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 recommenda- tions 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 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 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  

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,  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 officer duly authorised to certify its orders. The formation  

of opinion on the issue of need of land for a public purpose and suitability thereof is

Page 70

70

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 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  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 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  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 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  analysing  the  relevant  provisions,  the  majority  of  the  

Constitution Bench observed:

Page 71

71

“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, objec- tions are lodged, these objections will have to be decided by the Govern- ment.  For deciding them the Government will  have before it  the Col- lector'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) 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 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 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 question that the land is needed for a public purpose or  is needed for a company, as the case may be. Then again, the conclusive- ness must necessarily attach not merely to the need but also to the ques- tion whether the purpose is a public purpose or what is said to be a com- pany is a 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 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 declara- tion under Section 6(1) and makes it the sole judge whether there is in  fact a need and whether the purpose for which there is that need is a pub- lic purpose. The provisions of sub-section (3) preclude a court from as- certaining whether either of these ingredients of the declaration exists.”

(emphasis supplied)

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:

“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 Govern- ment that any particular land is needed for a public purpose or for a Com-

Page 72

72

pany, a declaration shall be made etc. The amendment of 1923 dropped  these words and substituted the words “when the Local Government is  satisfied after considering the report,  if  any,  made under Section 5-A,  sub-section (2)” etc. It seems that the amendment was considered neces- sary because the same Amendment Act inserted Section 5-A for the first  time in the Act which gave a right to persons 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 “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 words would be “when the Local Govern- ment is satisfied” rather than the words “when it appears to the Local  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 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 under Section 5-A or”.  Section 41 which requires the acquiring Company to enter into an agree- ment 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 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 re- quired by the Act to consider a report, the legislature had used the word  satisfaction on the part of the Government. 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 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 satisfied that a par- ticular land is needed for a public purpose or for a Company, a declara- tion shall be made “to that effect”. Satisfaction of the Government after  consideration  of  the  report,  if  any,  made  under  Section  5-A  is  un- doubtedly a condition precedent to a valid 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.

Page 73

73

But there is nothing in sub-section (1) which requires that such satisfac- tion need be stated in the declaration. The only declaration as required by  sub-section 1 is that the land to be acquired is needed for a public pur- pose 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  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 pur- pose or for a Company as the case may be. The contention therefore that  it is imperative that 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)

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 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.  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 be a substitute for the  

requirement  of  application  of  mind  by  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

Page 74

74

under 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  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.

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  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 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, 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

Page 75

75

public purpose and that in the garb of acquiring land 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 Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act are quashed. The parties are  

left to bear their own costs.

…..……….....……..….………………….…J.                        [G.S. SINGHVI]

…………..………..….………………….…J.    [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]

New Delhi, October 11, 2012.