LAW FOR ALL : …it is fundamental that compulsory taking of a man's property is a serious matter and the smaller the man the more serious the matter. Hearing him before depriving him is both reasonable and pre-emptive of arbitrariness, and denial of this administrative fairness is constitutional anathema except for good reasons.” Section 5-A is undoubtedly 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. But there is nothing in sub-section (1) which requires that such satisfaction 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 purpose or for a Company. Sub-section (2) makes this clear, for it clearly provides that the declaration “shall state” where such land is situate, “the purpose for which it is needed”, its approximate area and the place. Where its plan, if made, can be inspected. It is such a declaration made under sub-section (1) and published under sub-section (2) which becomes conclusive evidence that the particular land is needed for a public purpose or for a Company as the case may be. The contention therefore that it is imperative that the satisfaction must be expressed in the declaration or that otherwise the notification would not be in accord with Section 6 is not correct.”- In view of the findings recorded on the three 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 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.

Monday, October 15, 2012

…it is fundamental that compulsory taking of a man's property is a serious matter and the smaller the man the more serious the matter. Hearing him before depriving him is both reasonable and pre-emptive of arbitrariness, and denial of this administrative fairness is constitutional anathema except for good reasons.” Section 5-A is undoubtedly 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. But there is nothing in sub-section (1) which requires that such satisfaction 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 purpose or for a Company. Sub-section (2) makes this clear, for it clearly provides that the declaration “shall state” where such land is situate, “the purpose for which it is needed”, its approximate area and the place. Where its plan, if made, can be inspected. It is such a declaration made under sub-section (1) and published under sub-section (2) which becomes conclusive evidence that the particular land is needed for a public purpose or for a Company as the case may be. The contention therefore that it is imperative that the satisfaction must be expressed in the declaration or that otherwise the notification would not be in accord with Section 6 is not correct.”- In view of the findings recorded on the three 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 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.

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)

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 collaboration 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 villages for establishing Chandigarh as the new capital of
the State and also constituted various committees including Land Scape
Committee for implementing the plan. In the meeting of the Land Scape
Committee held on 3.9.1954, the Divisional Forest Officer, Rupar (now
Ropar) suggested that the land lying along the right bank of Sukhna Choe
and the left bank of Patiala Ki Rao where plantation had been started by
the Forest Department should be declared as reserved forest under Section 4
of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900. This was approved by the Land
Scape 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 Department 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 Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh
and transfer of some territories to State of Himachal Pradesh. With this,
6706 acres land out of 6724.19 acres land declared as reserved forest vide
notification dated 3.2.1961 was transferred to the Union Territory of
Chandigarh and 6127.09 acres of land constituting hilly catchment came to
vest in the Central Government by virtue of Section 48(5) of the 1966 Act.

5. With the passage of time, Chandigarh became an important destination
for education and attracted students from all over the country. However,
the employment opportunities available in the city did not match the
educational facilities and this resulted in exodus of talent from
Chandigarh to other cities. In the beginning of 21st Century the
Chandigarh Administration took steps to provide various incentives
including allotment of land to the entrepreneurs 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
Information 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:
|S.No.|Name of Companies |Plot |Date of |Present Status |%age |Size of |
| | |No. |Allotment| |status |land |
| | | | | |of | |
| | | | | |building| |
|1 |Infosys |1 |11.06.200|Operational |100 |30.21 |
| | | |4, | | | |
| | | |10.11.200| | | |
| | | |5 | | | |
|Non-SEZ |(in Acres) |
|Built to Suit Sites | |
|S.No.|Name of Companies |Plot |Date of |Status of Operation | |Size of |
| | |No. |Allotment| | |land |
|1 |Alchemist Ltd. |F-5 |02.01.200|Structure completed, expected to |70 |1.3 |
| | | |6 |complete by Sep' 11 | | |
|2 |Amadeus |B-11 |07.12.200|Structure completed, expected to |80 |1.41 |
| | | |5 |complete by Sep' 11 | | |
|3 |Bebo Technologies Ltd. |D-3 |27.12.200|Escavation done, expected to complete |30 |1.01 |
| | | |6 |by Sep' 11 | | |
|4 |Compact Disc India |13 |20.4 2009|Zoning plan issued, drawings will be |0 |0.996 |
| | | | |submitted shortly | | |
|5 |Damco Solutions Ltd. |13-A |16.8.2009|Zoning plan issued, drawings will be | 0 |0.9 |
| | | | |submitted shortly | | |
|6 |FCS Software Solutions |J-7 |29.12.200|Ground & First Floor operational |100 |1.65 |
| |Ltd. | |5 | | | |
|7 |IDS Infotech Ltd. |1-8 |2.1.2006 |Escavation is on, expected to complete|50 |1.32 |
| | | | |by Sep' 11 | | |
|8 |Karin Informatics |14 |01.06.200|Applied for partial completion |100 |1.5 |
| |Services Ltd. | |6 | | | |
|9 |Microtek International |A-12 |02.01 |Structure completed, expected to |85 |1.46 |
| |Pvt. Ltd. | |2006 |complete by Sep' 11 | | |
|10 |Netsmartz Infotech (1) |E-10 |07.08.200|Applied for partial completion |100 |1.76 |
| |Pvt. Ltd. | |6 | | | |
|11 |Net Solutions |15 |05.06.200|Structure completed, expected to |80 |1.6 |
| | | |6 |complete by Sep' 11 | | |
|12 |PCC Technology Group |C-4 |17.03 |Letter of Allotment yet to be issued |0 |1.1 |
| | | |2009 | | | |
|13 |RT Outsourcing Services|16 |12.06 |Building is complete & Ground Floor is|100 |1.5 |
| |Ltd. | |2006 |operational | | |
|14 |Second Foundation Inc. |G-9 |15 12 |Structure completed, expected to |95 |1.48 |
| | | |2005 |complete by Sep' 11 | | |
|15 |Virsa Systems |H-6 |28 |Structure completed, expected to |80 |1.3 |
| | | |12.2005 |complete by Sep' 11 | | |
| |DLF Infocity Developers|2 |23.12.200|Already Operational since Sep' 05 |100 |12.5 |
|16 |Ltd. | |3 | | | |

6. Between 2000-2004 over 267 acres land was acquired for Phase-II of
the IT Park and the plots were allotted to nine industries, the details of
which are given below:
|SEZ | | |Phase II |
|Main Campus Site | | |(in Acres) |
|S.No.|Name of Companies |Plot |Date of |Status of Operation | |Size of |
| | |No. |Allotment| | |land |
| | | | | | | |
|1 |Wipro Technologies Ltd.|27 |Resumed |Resumed |0 |30 |
|Campus Sites | | | |(in |
| | | | |Acres) |
|S.No.|Name of Companies |Plot |Date of |Status of Operation | |Size of |
| | |No. |Allotment| | |land |
| | | | | | | |
|1 |Tech Mahindra Ltd. |22-23|26.05.200|Operational since Oct'09 |100 |15 |
| | | |6 | | | |
|Built to Suit Sites | |. |
| | |(in Acres) |
|S.No.|Name of Companies |Plot |Date of |Status of Operation | |Size of |
| | |No. |Allotment| | |land |
| | | | | | | |
|1 |22nd Century |25-C |08.05.200|Allotment awaited |0 |0.67 |
| |Technologies Inc. | |8 | | | |
|2 |KMG Infotech Pvt. Ltd. |25-A |05.04.200|Allotment done, yet to submit drawings|0 |1.1 |
| | | |9 | | | |
|3 |Ramtech Software |26-A |12.03.200|Drawings of proposed building |0 |0.52 |
| |Solutions | |9 |submitted | | |
|4 |Silicon Valley Systech |25-D |05.05.200|SEZ approval awaited |0 |0.67 |
| |Inc. | |8 | | | |
|5 |Rolta India Ltd. |25-D | |Resumed |0 |2.98 |
|Non-SEZ |(in Acres) |
|Campus Site | |
|S.No.|Name of Companies |Plot |Date of |Status of Operation | |Size of |
| | |No. |Allotment| | |land |
| | | | | | | |
|I 1 |Bharti Airtel Ltd. |21 |05.06.200|Operational since Aug'09 |100 |5 |
| | | |6 | | | |
| 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.
8. Out of the remaining land of Phase-II, 135 acres was transferred to
the Chandigarh Housing Board (for short, ‘the Board’) vide order dated
15.11.2005/1.12.2005 issued by the Finance Secretary, Chandigarh
Administration for development of residential and other infrastructural
facilities in the IT Park. The relevant portions of that order are
extracted below:

“1. The Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh-, is
pleased to order to the transfer of 135 acres of land in
the Chandigarh Technology Park at Kishangarh in favour of
the Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh, on free hold
basis, for the execution of the project of development and
residential and other infrastructural facilities in the
said park. The price of the land, details of the land use
and other terms and conditions of transfer of this land
will be 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 Administration.

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.

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
development of residential and other infrastructural facilities in the IT
Park, the real purpose was to benefit the private developers and this
became evident from the decision 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 commercial 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 subsequent
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
detailed modalities will be worked out by CHB separately.”

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 Living) to attract prospective buyers of
residential and commercial properties, M/s Parsvnath Developers appears to
have abandoned the project and raised certain disputes which are pending
before the arbitrator.

11. Soon after transfer of almost half of the land acquired for Phase-II
to a private developer, Land Acquisition Officer, Union Territory,
Chandigarh (hereinafter described 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 under:
“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

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
required 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 following 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 CTP Phase-1 on an urgent
basis. The road next to Infosys is to be shifted as already urgently.

3. It was decided that the Build to Suit Sites which have already been
allotted would be formally handed over to the allottees and their
construction may begin by next month.
4. It was also decided that the power line in the entire area
comprising CTP Phase-I and Phase-II may be shifted underground along
the roads.

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

6. Regarding land scaping it was decided that Chief Architect UT,
Chief Engineer UT and Director Information 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:
“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 action is
initiated, but no communication has been received till date.

Subsequently, in a meeting held on 04.01.2006, it was desired to
acquire the land of Village Manimajra as maximum as can be.
Accordingly, an intensive survey of 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 Nagar’, 32 Farm-houses, 2
Nurseries and 2 Poultry-farms. The proposed land to be acquired has
been shown on the map enclosed herewith.

If this land is decided to be acquired, a sum of Rs. 165 crores
(approximately) 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
compensation of these fruit-bearing trees would be invariably very
high.

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

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

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

i) There was no meeting held on 29.12.2005. This is a typographical 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 attended by Land
Acquisition Officer; Director, IT and Jt. Secretary (Finance).
However, no minutes were recorded for that meeting, which is referred
to in the letter dated 16.01.2006.”

15. After three months, the Finance Secretary sent memo 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,
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 development 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
NOTIFICATION

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 Territory, 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 publication
of the Notification before the Land Acquisition Collector, Union
Territory, Chandigarh.”

17. On 2.8.2006, another notification was issued for the acquisition of
167.50 acres land for the same purpose.

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 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 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.

4(1) THE PLANNING OF Phase I & II of the Rajiv Gandhi Technology
Park has been completed. In the side area the planning has been
done for IT and other related services/uses to IT Park i.e.,
Hotel, Grid Sub Station, Tube Wells, Commercial Area, reserve
etc.

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
approximately 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
(Conservation) Act, 1980, which does not allow deforestation
leading 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.

(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 unutilized
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
rehabilitation 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 mettalled 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 reproduced 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
right holders to raise objections against the same under section
5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 effectively. The total
area under acquisition is less than 168 acres. There are four
purposes mentioned for which the land is sought to be acquired
without specifying as to how much land is needed for each
purpose. The four purposes mentioned are:

i) the provision of city level infrastructure
ii) the regulated urban development of area 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
infrastructure and what is the difference between regulated
urban development 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 effectively they must know as to how much area is
required for each purpose and how the purposes mentioned are
different from each other, particularly item numbers (i), (ii)
and (iii).

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

Violation of the Periphery Act:
The impugned notification itself is violative of the 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
Administration for the development of the aforementioned land
from the authority under the Periphery Control Act and
consequently the entire acquisition proceedings are illegal,
null and void.

Over the past 15 years the Chandigarh Administration has
compulsorily acquired huge chunks of land in Village Manimajra,
District Chandigarh purportedly for various public purposes.
However, in most cases the areas acquired have not been fully
utilized and are either lying vacant or have been encroached
upon. In this scenario the action of the Chandigarh
Administration to acquire another huge chunk of land in Village
Manimajra under the impugned notification is incomprehensible
and cannot be 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 unutilized 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-commercial 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 "residential-cum-commercial complex
scheme no.2 and construction of multi-specialty hospital";

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

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

• 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 covering 21.51 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)-91/7628 dated 8.8.1991 issued
under Section 6 of the LA Act covering 40.84 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
purpose. In fact, the Chandigarh Administration itself has
neither developed nor is it running the technology park but has
allotted the land to DLF Ltd., a private entrepreneur for this
purpose. DLF Ltd. has profiteered by selling the area further to
other private companies. Thus the whole idea behind the impugned
acquisition proceedings is to assist a private entrepreneur to
profiteer. No person from the ordinary public will be benefited
in any way. In today's 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 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 common use etc. it is clear that it is for
the purpose of a particular industry only. The Chandigarh
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 provision
of city level infrastructure, the regulated development of the
area between Chandigarh and Manimajra, the planned development
and expansion of Chandigarh Technology Park. The said alleged
public purposes mentioned in the impugned notification are
extremely vague and non-specific leaving one completely in the
dark as to what actually the Chandigarh Administration intends
to do with the acquired land. No particular residential or
commercial scheme has been drawn up by the Chandigarh
Administration for acquiring the land in dispute. The
acquisition of valuable land under the impugned notification
thus amounts to a colourable exercise of power by the Chandigarh
Administration.

Under the impugned notification the purported public 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
acquisition under the impugned notification would lead to
complete destruction of the land sought to be acquired under the
impugned notification.

The public purpose must not only be specified in the
notification 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 details of the scheme, the plans etc. must be available in
the office of the Land Acquisition Collector for perusal of the
objector. In the present case as no such plan/scheme is
available in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector or any
other office, it is apparent that the alleged public purpose is
merely an attempt by the Chandigarh Administration to acquire
the land with the sole object of using it at a later date for
whatsoever purpose that may be required.

No public purpose has been spelt out nor any public purpose has
been established for the proposed acquisition. In any case the
proposed construction of the IT Park is not a conducive measure
because of the fact that it is closer to the defence area
adjoining Chandimandir and can interfere in the communication
system and sensitive defence installations. The public purpose
mentioned is vague and as such it is not possible for the right
holders to raise objections against the same, 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
allowed 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 Government and
is a protected area and is known as the Sukhna Wildlife
Sanctuary. If high rise buildings are allowed to be constructed
on the land being acquired under the impugned notification it
will affect the migratory route of the thousands of birds which
make their nests in the Sukhna Lake area after migrating from as
far as Siberia in Russia. Permitting urbanisation next to the
Sukhna Lake and next to the surrounding reserve forest will be a
death knell for the precious wildlife and fauna existing there.
Though trees may be able to survive the onslaught of
urbanisation, wild animals and birds certainly will not be able
to do so and they would have to move to safer habitats away from
human habitation.

It would also be pertinent to mention here that the land sought
to be acquired is forest land as also agricultural land. The
proposed acquisition will result in the extinction, uprooting &
leveling of these trees which are in the prime of life. The
proposed acquisition is violative of the climate 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
are hundreds of fruit bearing trees and non-fruit bearing trees
standing. This green area acts as a barrier between the
urbanized areas in Chandigarh and Panchkula in Haryana. This
green and forested area also helps in stopping soil erosion into
the Sukhna Choe. The removal of this green and forested area
would result in soil erosion which is like to cause flash floods
in the rainy 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 Administration needs to define its role viz a viz
the citizen, is it here to protect us or to endanger our lives.
Chandigarh needs to be protected and that is what the Chandigarh
Administration should be doing.

That in any case, no resolution for change has been passed for
conversion of the proposed land from the 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
orchards are the lungs of a city and have a very important
environmental function to perform. Such lands cannot be acquired
under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Chandigarh Administration has not carried out an
Environmental Impact Assessment study which is extremely
necessary before an exercise of this magnitude is carried out.
Further more it needs to be pointed out that if the recent
happenings in the country are any indication, it is essential to
carry out a geological study of the area and conduct surveys
before deciding to demolish the green belt around Chandigarh
which the Chandigarh Administration has not done. Every place
cannot be suitable for the multi-storied monsters of steel and
concrete that are bound to come up on the land once acquired.
Nature is beautiful but it does demand obedience to its
ordinances. When violated the earth erupts and we have
earthquakes. Man cannot continue to 'pick nature's pocket'. He
must discipline himself.

No Planning/Scheme exists and Discrimination:

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

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
representative 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 relevant urban planning data available. It is thus apparent
that in the absence of any detail plans and data with respect to
the avowed public purpose, the alleged public purpose is a mere
sham and, therefore, violates the rights of the petitioner to
effectively object to the proposed acquisition in terms of
Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Consequently the
entire proceedings are illegal, null and void.

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

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
denied a basic right of examining the plans and other documents
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.

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 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
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.

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 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
Administrative approval for the issuance of notification Under
Section of the Land Acquisition Act and also for the acceptance of
recommendations after receiving objections Under Section 5 A from the
Land Owner with regard to acquisition land measuring 104.83 acres
acquisition of land for the purpose namely "the provision of city
level infrastructure, the regulated urban development of the area
between Chandigarh 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
Officer 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 administration earlier has not been utilized. It has
further been objected that emaciate compensation is being given to
the land owners whereas the slum dwellers occupying government land
are being rehabilitated and the land owners are being made home less.
The Administration is acquiring land for the public purpose for
pocketing hefty profits by giving the land to private developers. No
rehabilitation scheme for the land owners have been framed.

Some other land owners have also raised the similar objections.
Mrs. Ritu Joshi objected that the land is being acquired is being
given for the commercial activities whereas, she has not permitted
the land for the hotel project when she applied once.

The Land Acquisition Officer after examining objections has
found no merits, because for future extension of capital and to
ensure healthy and planned development and further to prevent growth
of slums, this was required to be acquired. The Land Acquisition
Officer has further stated that the structure existing on the site
called Shastri Nagar has been raised in violation of the periphery
control act. The objection that the Administration is paying meager
compensation is baseless as reported by the Land Acquisition Officer.
The compensation is determined as per the existing provision of the
law. The landowners are not only paid to award calculated on the
basis of the collector rate but also solatium @ of 30% and additional
market value @ rate of 12 % per annum. The award has further subject
to the legal scrutiny by courts, as the land owners has the liberty
to approach them.

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, Education
Institutions, Hospitals, Electricity Grid Station, Tube well and
Community Centers etc. some land is allotted at subsidized rates also
in public interest for religious, 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
Acquisition 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 expansion 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
Acquisition Officer invited objections from land owners. 16 persons
filed their objections in all.

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

The findings of the LAO in respect of each set of objections can
be read at pages 416-418 of his report. 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
findings are in order. Therefore, approval may be granted to the
proposal to issue a notification under section 6 (placed at flag ‘Y’)
in respect of land measuring 104.83 acres in Village Manimajra,
Hadbast No.375, U.T., Chandigarh.

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

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 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 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 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 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 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
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 following:

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

(ii) Where the Inquiry Officer has agreed with the audit
findings, they may be reduced to the form of a preliminary show
cause notice and the preliminary show cause notice may be issued
to those who have been found, prima facie, responsible and the
comments obtained on why disciplinary proceedings and such other
action as permissible under law should not be taken against
them. The show cause notice may be drawn up and issued by
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.

(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 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.

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:

“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 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

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 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 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 section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
ii) Cases raising question of policy and cases of
administrative importance.
iii) Cases which effect or are likely to effect peace and tranquility
of the State.
iv) Cases which effect the relations of Union Territory
Administration with other State Governments, the Supreme
Court or the High Court.
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
extension of any State Act under section 87 of the Punjab
Reorganisation Act to the Union Territory, Chandigarh.
x) Cases where modification of the orders passed by the
predecessors 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
consider 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

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 Adviser 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 Arjun 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 Adviser to the Administrator of the
Union Territory of Chandigarh.

(Baleshwar Rai)
Director.”