Narinjan Singh And A... v. The State Of Punjab ...

I.S Tiwana, J.:— The petitioners impugn the notifications issued by the State Government under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) on May 2, 1980 and June 22, 1982 (Annexures P. 1 and P. 2, respectively) inter alia on the ground that the non completion of the acquisition proceedings for more than two years subsequent to the issuance of the latter notification is well indicative of the fact that the notifications were the result of colourable exercise of power under the Act and were issued only with a view to peg down the price of the suit land to the date of the first notification. The learned Judges of the Motion Bench noticing that in different judgments of this Court similar notifications had been quashed in the light of the varied extent of the delay in completing the acquisition proceedings in those cases, directed this petition to be heard by a Full Bench. That is how the case is before us now.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we find it wholly unnecessary to go into the matter any further in view of the conceded position that the acquiring authorities have taken possession of the suit land in terms of section 16 of the Act and as a result there of the land has come to vest in the Government free from all encumbrances Though Mr. Dhingra, learned counsel for the petitioners raises the contention that this delivery of possession to the State authorities does not in any way effect the rights of the petitioner's to assail the impugned notifications on the above noted ground, yet we find no merit in this stand of the learned counsel. Once the Collector makes his award under section 11 of the Act and takes possession of the land, two consequences follow, i.e, (i) the acquired land aboslutely vests in the Government, and (ii) such vesting it free from all encumbrances. In other words, with the taking of the possession by the Government the title of the land acquired completely passess to the State. We find that in two other earlier cases, i.e, C.W.P No. 3936 of 1984 Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab . C.W.P 3936 of 1984. decided on September 3, 1984 and C.W.P No. 296 of 1984 Hari Chand v. The State of Punjab . C.W.P 3960 of 1984. decided on September 4, 1984, similar view was expressed by the Division Bench while dismissing the petitions right at the threshold, i.e, the motion hearing We, therefore, find no justification to intervene at this stage in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. For the reasons recorded above this petition fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs.

Sd/- P.C Jain, Act. C.J

Sd/- S.P Goyal, J.

R.M.S

Appeal dismissed.